Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/955,371 and the amendments filed on 5/21/2026.
3. Claims 1 and 4-10 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 has been fully considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 5/21/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 1-6 and 9-10 for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 3/20/2026 have been withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner agrees that US 20180240258 A1 to Kosaka fails to teach all of the amended limitations of the claim. However, in light of the amendments and the Applicant’s remarks, an updated search was conducted, and a new ground of rejection concerning claim 1 has been determined, in which will be described later.
Regarding dependent claims 2-3, these claims have been cancelled, and thus, are withdrawn from further consideration.
Regarding dependent claims 4-8, as all of these claims depend from claim 1, are still rejected, in which will be described later.
Regarding independent claims 9-10, as these claims contain similar limitations to claim 1, are still rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 is, in which will be described later.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 10, the term “displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at a the position of the target object,” recited in lines 10-11 of claim 10 should read “displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at the position of the target object.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
8. Claims 1 and 4-10 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the relation of the determined moving averages of the changes in positions of the target object versus the first and second thresholds is deemed to be indefinite for confusing and seemingly conflictual relationships between these two aspects of the claim.
Claim 1 establishes that the first threshold for the moving average of the change in position of the target object is greater than the second threshold for the moving average of the change in position of the target object, recited in lines 17-19 of claim 1. Thus, an exceedingly large change in position of the target object over time would appear likely to be greater than the first threshold. However, claim 1 establishes that when the moving average of the change in position of the target object is greater than the first threshold, that the display mark is displayed at the position of the target object, recited in lines 11-13 of claim 1. Thus, even though the moving average is high, the display mark is still supposedly accurately able to be positioned at the position of the target object.
Claim 1 also establishes that when the moving average of the change in position of the target object is less than the first threshold but greater than the smaller second threshold, the display mark is able to be displayed around the position of the target object with some range for error, the error range being a display mark position that is less than said second threshold position, recited in lines 23-25 of claim 1. It appears conflicting to the Examiner how a larger change in position of the target object results in a supposedly more accurate positioning of the display mark compared to a smaller change in position of the target object.
The Examiner acknowledges that the written description support for the amendments of claim 1 comes from at least the flow chart of Figure 4 of the drawings. Box 118 of Figure 4 states that when the moving average of the change in position of the target object is greater than the first threshold to display the position of the display mark at the current position of the target object. However, paragraphs [0053] – [0055] of the specification of the instant application, which is the specification support for box 118 of Figure 4, appears to state the opposite. Here, it is stated that when the change in position of the target object is greater than the first threshold, including in cases where the target object is lost from tracking or there is great error, the position of the display mark is set to a limited position based on prior tracking of the target object. This appears in conflict with the amended limitations of claim 1, which states that even though the change in position of the target object is greater than the first threshold, to even still display the mark at the position of the target object. If the change in position of the target object results in the target object being lost in tracking or offscreen, it is confusing how the display mark is still able to be positioned at the position of the target object, above this first threshold. Displaying the mark at a previous position of the target object may make more sense in this aspect and appears in congruence with paragraphs [0054] and [0055] of the specification of the instant application. However, as currently claimed, this appears to create great conflict and a conundrum within the claim language and how the claim language matches the written description within the specification of the instant application.
For these reasons, claim 1 is deemed to be indefinite. The Examiner requests clarification from the Applicant on this concept of claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 4-8, as all of these claims depend from claim 1, inherit all of the limitations of claim 1, and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1 is, described above.
Regarding independent claims 9-10, as both of these claims contain similar limitations to claim 1, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 1 is described above.
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.
9. Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1:
101 Analysis: Step 1
Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed to a display control device (i.e., a machine), and therefore is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong I
Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Regarding Claim 1, the claim is determined to fall under the category of an abstract idea,
defined as the following: a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human
activity, and/or mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
A display control device comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to:
acquire position information of a target object;
determine a change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position;
determine a first threshold based on a distance to the target object and the change in position of the target object;
determine whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, display a mark in a display area of a display device at the position of the target object;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold, determine whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, display the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object; and
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, display the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position.
Under the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrases bolded above in
claim 1 recite mental processes, where the limitations can be performed in the human mind.
With regards to “determine a change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., observes, calculates, estimates, etc.) a change in position of a target object in an environment. Humans have the mental ability to observe changes in the position of objects in an environment, and even at least roughly calculate how much change has occurred.
With regards to “determine a first threshold based on a distance to the target object and the change in position of the target object,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., calculates, estimates, decides, etc.) on a first distance threshold for how much an object moves relative to a reference point. Humans have the mental ability to observe both of the relative distance an object is away from said human and a rough estimate on how much an object has changed position over time. Humans may also arbitrarily determine a threshold for what constitutes “far enough away” and “significantly moved in position,” all within the human mind.
With regards to “determine whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a value representing a change in position of an object is higher than a determined threshold or not. Humans have the mental ability to determine a moving average of an object, which is interpreted by the Examiner to be a change in position over time. The Examiner notes that the moving average in the change of position may be zero, such as for a static object. Even with a positive moving average in the change in position, humans have the mental ability to at least roughly calculate how much an object has moved over a set timeframe. Moreover, humans have the mental ability to judge and decide whether a resulting value for the moving average is above or below a decided upon threshold.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, display a mark in a display area of a display device at the position of the target object,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., decides, judges, etc.) whether a calculated resulting value of a moving average of a change in position of an object is above a threshold value or not. Humans have the mental ability to judge and decide on whether a resulting value is greater than or less than a given value threshold. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “displaying a mark in a display area of the display device at the position of the target object,” is included with the determination step as an abstract idea according to MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2) section III A, specifically regarding the example “Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” The Examiner submits that the displaying step of claim 1 of the instant application is generically displaying a mark on a display device relative to a position of an object, but nothing more is stated.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold, determine whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a resulting moving average value is above or below a known threshold value. Humans have the mental ability to judge how resulting calculated values are relative to known threshold values. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, or that a moving average of 9 units is below this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, display the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a resulting moving average value is above or below a known threshold value. Humans have the mental ability to judge how resulting calculated values are relative to known threshold values. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, or that a moving average of 9 units is below this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind. The Examiner notes that the displaying of the mark is included inside of the abstract idea for the same reasons as pointed out above in this section of the 101 rejection.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, display the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a resulting moving average value is above or below a known threshold value. Humans have the mental ability to judge how resulting calculated values are relative to known threshold values. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, or that a moving average of 9 units is below this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind. The Examiner notes that the displaying of the mark is included inside of the abstract idea for the same reasons as pointed out above in this section of the 101 rejection.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong II
Does the claim recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application?
The additional elements of claim 1 do not recite the judicial exception into a practical
application. The additional elements of claim 1, as shown below, are underlined, while the
abstract ideas of the claim are bolded.
Claim 1 recites:
A display control device comprising:
a memory; and
a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to:
acquire position information of a target object;
determine a change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position;
determine a first threshold based on a distance to the target object and the change in position of the target object;
determine whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, display a mark in a display area of a display device at the position of the target object;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold, determine whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, display the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object; and
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, display the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position.
The Examiner has determined that the additional elements of the claim underlined above do not integrate the abstract ideas listed above into a practical application.
Regarding the limitations of the memory and the processor coupled to the memory, the Examiner submits that these are generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas of the claim, without any specific or unique structures or features to bring them above this. As the memory and processor are both described within paragraph [0039] of the specification of the instant application and shown in Figure 1 of the drawings, simply appear to be generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality, lacking any sort of special or unique features or functions that would bring them above this.
Regarding the limitation “acquire position information of a target object,” the Examiner submits that this is simply the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, with nothing else to bring it above this.
Thus, for the additional elements of claim 1 analyzed individually, there is insufficient
reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications.
Furthermore, looking at the additional elements with respect to the whole claim, do not add
any more reasoning as to why the additional elements justify a practical application. Taken as a
whole, the additional elements recite generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them and the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, without anything more to overcome this. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regards to step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 1 does not recite any additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as
described above in step 2A prong II of the 101 analysis.
With regards to the memory and processor, these are simply generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them, with no special features or structures associated with them recited to bring them above this. Further, with regards to the step of acquiring position information of a target object, this is simply the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, which nothing else above this recited. Generally applying an exception using generic computing elements or insignificant extra-solution activities in this way cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 4-8 do not recite further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims further are directed toward
additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, dependent claims 4-8 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, “wherein the processor is configured to, upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, make a movement amount of the display position of the mark a pre-set upper limit value or lower,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely recites the same abstract idea within claim 1 in the form of the determination step of whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, and the abstract idea of making (i.e., determining, creating, designing, etc.) a pre-set upper limit for a display mark. The Examiner notes that the display mark recited in claim 4 is not necessarily moving, but rather, it is determined what value the upper limit of movement may be, which may be performed entirely within the human mind.
Regarding Claim 5, “where, upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, the processor is configured to determine the display position of the mark based on the position information that was detected prior to a timing at which the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeded the second threshold,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely recites the same abstract idea as in claim 1 with regards to determine whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, and the additional abstract idea of determining (i.e., calculating, estimating, deciding, etc.) a display position of the display mark, to which the Examiner submits may be performed with the human mind.
Regarding Claim 6, “wherein: the first threshold and the second threshold are set separately in a vehicle width direction and in a vehicle height direction; and the processor is configured to: set a display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction to a position corresponding to a position of the target object for the vehicle width direction, as represented by the position information, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle width direction is a first specific value or lower for the vehicle width direction, set the display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction such that movement of the display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction in the display area of the display device is limited, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle width direction has exceeded a second specific value for the vehicle width direction, and also set a display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction to a position corresponding to a position of the target object for the vehicle height direction, as represented by the position information, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle height direction is a first specific value or lower for the vehicle height direction, and set the display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction such that movement of the display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction in the display area of the display device is limited, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle height direction has exceeded a second specific value for the vehicle height direction,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely recites multiple abstract ideas in the form of setting (i.e., determining, deciding, etc.) display mark positions based on acquired information parameters, to which the Examiner submits may all be performed within the human mind.
Regarding Claim 7, “wherein the display device is a head-up display,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely further defines some structure of the display device, but is still a relatively generic structure that does not bring the abstract ideas of claim 1 into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 8, “wherein the target object is a lead vehicle under following control performed by adaptive cruise control,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely further defines the target object, but not in such a way that the abstract ideas of the claim recite a practical application.
Independent Claim 9:
101 Analysis: Step 1
Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claim 9 is directed to a display control method (i.e., a process), and therefore is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong I
Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is determined to fall under the category of an abstract idea,
defined as the following: a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human
activity, and/or mental processes.
Claim 9 recites:
A display control method of processing executed by a computer, the processing comprising:
acquiring position information of a target object;
determining a change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position;
determining a first threshold based on a distance to the target object and the change in position of the target object;
determining whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at the position of the target object;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold, determining whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object; and
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position.
Under the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrases bolded above in
claim 9 recite mental processes, where the limitations can be performed in the human mind.
With regards to “determining a change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., observes, calculates, estimates, etc.) a change in position of a target object in an environment. Humans have the mental ability to observe changes in the position of objects in an environment, and even at least roughly calculate how much change has occurred.
With regards to “determining a first threshold based on a distance to the target object and the change in position of the target object” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., calculates, estimates, decides, etc.) on a first distance threshold for how much an object moves relative to a reference point. Humans have the mental ability to observe both of the relative distance an object is away from said human and a rough estimate on how much an object has changed position over time. Humans may also arbitrarily determine a threshold for what constitutes “far enough away” and “significantly moved in position,” all within the human mind.
With regards to “determining whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a value representing a change in position of an object is higher than a determined threshold or not. Humans have the mental ability to determine a moving average of an object, which is interpreted by the Examiner to be a change in position over time. The Examiner notes that the moving average in the change of position may be zero, such as for a static object. Even with a positive moving average in the change in position, humans have the mental ability to at least roughly calculate how much an object has moved over a set timeframe. Moreover, humans have the mental ability to judge and decide whether a resulting value for the moving average is above or below a decided upon threshold.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at the position of the target object,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., decides, judges, etc.) whether a calculated resulting value of a moving average of a change in position of an object is above a threshold value or not. Humans have the mental ability to judge and decide on whether a resulting value is greater than or less than a given value threshold. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “displaying a mark in a display area of the display device at the position of the target object,” is included with the determination step as an abstract idea according to MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2) section III A, specifically regarding the example “Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” The Examiner submits that the displaying step of claim 9 of the instant application is generically displaying a mark on a display device relative to a position of an object, but nothing more is stated.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold, determining whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a resulting moving average value is above or below a known threshold value. Humans have the mental ability to judge how resulting calculated values are relative to known threshold values. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, or that a moving average of 9 units is below this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a resulting moving average value is above or below a known threshold value. Humans have the mental ability to judge how resulting calculated values are relative to known threshold values. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, or that a moving average of 9 units is below this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind. The Examiner notes that the displaying of the mark is included inside of the abstract idea for the same reasons as pointed out above in this section of the 101 rejection.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a resulting moving average value is above or below a known threshold value. Humans have the mental ability to judge how resulting calculated values are relative to known threshold values. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, or that a moving average of 9 units is below this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind. The Examiner notes that the displaying of the mark is included inside of the abstract idea for the same reasons as pointed out above in this section of the 101 rejection.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong II
Does the claim recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application?
The additional elements of claim 9 do not recite the judicial exception into a practical
application. The additional elements of claim 9, as shown below, are underlined, while the
abstract ideas of the claim are bolded.
Claim 9 recites:
A display control method of processing executed by a computer, the processing comprising:
acquiring position information of a target object;
determining a change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position;
determining a first threshold based on a distance to the target object and the change in position of the target object;
determining whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at the position of the target object;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold, determining whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object; and
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position.
The Examiner has determined that the additional elements of the claim underlined above do not integrate the abstract ideas listed above into a practical application.
Regarding the limitation of the computer, the Examiner submits that this is simply generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas of the claim, without any specific or unique structures or features to bring them above this. As the computer is described within paragraph [0023] of the specification of the instant application, simply appears to be generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality, lacking any sort of special or unique features or functions that would bring them above this.
Regarding the limitation “acquiring position information of a target object,” the Examiner submits that this is simply the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, with nothing else to bring it above this.
Thus, for the additional elements of claim 9 analyzed individually, there is insufficient
reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications.
Furthermore, looking at the additional elements with respect to the whole claim, do not add
any more reasoning as to why the additional elements justify a practical application. Taken as a
whole, the additional elements recite generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them and the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, without anything more to overcome this. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regards to step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 9 does not recite any additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as
described above in step 2A prong II of the 101 analysis.
With regards to the computer, this is simply generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them, with no special features or structures associated with them recited to bring them above this. Further, with regards to the step of acquiring position information of a target object, this is simply the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, which nothing else above this recited. Generally applying an exception using generic computing elements or insignificant extra-solution activities in this way cannot provide an inventive concept.
Independent Claim 10:
101 Analysis: Step 1
Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a machine), and therefore is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong I
Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is determined to fall under the category of an abstract idea, defined as the following: a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human
activity, and/or mental processes.
Claim 10 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium recorded with a display control program that causes a computer to execute processing comprising:
acquiring position information of a target object;
determining a change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position;
determining a first threshold based on a distance to the target object and the change in position of the target object;
determining whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at a the position of the target object;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold, determining whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object; and
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position.
Under the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrases bolded above in
claim 10 recite mental processes, where the limitations can be performed in the human mind.
With regards to “determining a change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., observes, calculates, estimates, etc.) a change in position of a target object in an environment. Humans have the mental ability to observe changes in the position of objects in an environment, and even at least roughly calculate how much change has occurred.
With regards to “determining a first threshold based on a distance to the target object and the change in position of the target object,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., calculates, estimates, decides, etc.) on a first distance threshold for how much an object moves relative to a reference point. Humans have the mental ability to observe both of the relative distance an object is away from said human and a rough estimate on how much an object has changed position over time. Humans may also arbitrarily determine a threshold for what constitutes “far enough away” and “significantly moved in position,” all within the human mind.
With regards to “determining whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a value representing a change in position of an object is higher than a determined threshold or not. Humans have the mental ability to determine a moving average of an object, which is interpreted by the Examiner to be a change in position over time. The Examiner notes that the moving average in the change of position may be zero, such as for a static object. Even with a positive moving average in the change in position, humans have the mental ability to at least roughly calculate how much an object has moved over a set timeframe. Moreover, humans have the mental ability to judge and decide whether a resulting value for the moving average is above or below a decided upon threshold.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at a the position of the target object,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., decides, judges, etc.) whether a calculated resulting value of a moving average of a change in position of an object is above a threshold value or not. Humans have the mental ability to judge and decide on whether a resulting value is greater than or less than a given value threshold. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind. The Examiner notes that the limitation of “displaying a mark in a display area of the display device at the position of the target object,” is included with the determination step as an abstract idea according to MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2) section III A, specifically regarding the example “Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” The Examiner submits that the displaying step of claim 10 of the instant application is generically displaying a mark on a display device relative to a position of an object, but nothing more is stated.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold, determining whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a resulting moving average value is above or below a known threshold value. Humans have the mental ability to judge how resulting calculated values are relative to known threshold values. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, or that a moving average of 9 units is below this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a resulting moving average value is above or below a known threshold value. Humans have the mental ability to judge how resulting calculated values are relative to known threshold values. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, or that a moving average of 9 units is below this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind. The Examiner notes that the displaying of the mark is included inside of the abstract idea for the same reasons as pointed out above in this section of the 101 rejection.
With regards to “upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human determines (i.e., judges, decides, calculates, etc.) whether a resulting moving average value is above or below a known threshold value. Humans have the mental ability to judge how resulting calculated values are relative to known threshold values. For example, if the first threshold of the moving average in the change of position is a value of 10 units, a human can reasonably determine that a moving average of 11 units is greater than this threshold of 10 units, or that a moving average of 9 units is below this threshold of 10 units, all within the human mind. The Examiner notes that the displaying of the mark is included inside of the abstract idea for the same reasons as pointed out above in this section of the 101 rejection.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong II
Does the claim recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application?
The additional elements of claim 10 do not recite the judicial exception into a practical
application. The additional elements of claim 10, as shown below, are underlined, while the
abstract ideas of the claim are bolded.
Claim 10 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium recorded with a display control program that causes a computer to execute processing comprising:
acquiring position information of a target object;
determining a change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position;
determining a first threshold based on a distance to the target object and the change in position of the target object;
determining whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at a the position of the target object;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold, determining whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold;
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object; and
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position.
The Examiner has determined that the additional elements of the claim underlined above do not integrate the abstract ideas listed above into a practical application.
Regarding the limitation of the computer, the Examiner submits that this is simply generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas of the claim, without any specific or unique structures or features to bring them above this. As the computer is described within paragraph [0023] of the specification of the instant application, simply appears to be generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality, lacking any sort of special or unique features or functions that would bring them above this.
Regarding the limitation “acquiring position information of a target object,” the Examiner submits that this is simply the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, with nothing else to bring it above this.
Thus, for the additional elements of claim 10 analyzed individually, there is insufficient
reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications.
Furthermore, looking at the additional elements with respect to the whole claim, do not add
any more reasoning as to why the additional elements justify a practical application. Taken as a
whole, the additional elements recite generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them and the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, without anything more to overcome this. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regards to step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 10 does not recite any additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as
described above in step 2A prong II of the 101 analysis.
With regards to the computer, this is simply generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them, with no special features or structures associated with them recited to bring them above this. Further, with regards to the step of acquiring position information of a target object, this is simply the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering, which nothing else above this recited. Generally applying an exception using generic computing elements or insignificant extra-solution activities in this way cannot provide an inventive concept.
In conclusion, as explained above, claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as ineligible subject matter related to an abstract idea, with insignificant additional elements to overcome the judiciary exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 20170036601 A1 hereinafter Kimura) in view of Minemura et al. (US 20180114442 A1 hereinafter Minemura).
Regarding Claim 1, Kimura teaches a display control device comprising: a memory ([0054] via “The ECU 2 is an electronic control unit constituted by … a read only memory [ROM], a random access memory [RAM], and the like.”); and
a processor coupled to the memory ([0054] via “The ECU 2 is an electronic control unit constituted by a central processing unit [CPU], a read only memory [ROM], a random access memory [RAM], and the like.”), the processor being configured to:
acquire position information of a target object ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2 causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the preceding vehicle of Kimura as the target object.);
determine a change in position of the target object ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2
causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”), ([0088] via “Thereafter, the ECU 2
repeats the process again from S101 after the elapse of a time which is set in advance.”), (Note: See Figure 6 of Kimura as well. The Examiner interprets the repeated determination of the inter-vehicle distance as incorporating a recognition of a change in position of the target object.);
determine a first threshold based on a distance to the target object ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”) and the change in position of the target object ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”), ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2 causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”), ([0088] via “Thereafter, the ECU 2 repeats the process again from S101 after the elapse of a time which is set in advance.”);
determine whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”);
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, display a mark in a display area of a display device at the position of the target object ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a white display.”), (Note: See Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10 where display P is located at a position corresponding to the target object.);
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the first distance threshold, ….”), determine whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold ([0078] via “In addition, the display control unit 15 may determine the inter-vehicle time using a second distance threshold smaller than the first distance threshold.”);
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, display the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object ([0078] via “In a case where it is determined, for example, that the inter-vehicle time between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the second distance threshold, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a red blinking display.”), (Note: See Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10 where display P is located at a position corresponding to the target object.); and
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, display the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position ([0078] via “In a case where it is determined, for example, that the inter-vehicle time between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the first distance threshold and is equal to or greater than the second distance threshold which is set in advance, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a yellow blinking display or a red lighting display.”), (Note: See Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10 where display P is located within a position threshold corresponding to the target object.).
Kimura is silent on determining the change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position.
However, Minemura teaches determining the change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position ([0188] via “The collision time calculator 14b predicts the movement trajectory of the target object 60 based on the previous positions 61 and the current position of the target object 60.”), (Note: See Figure 10 of Minemura as well. The Examiner interprets the previous positions 61 of Minemura as the reference position.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Minemura wherein the processor is configured to: determine the change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position. Doing so utilizes previously known recognized positions of the target object to determine how far the target object has moved over time, as stated above by Minemura and depicted in Figure 10 of Minemura.
Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Kimura teaches the display control device of claim 1, wherein, upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, the processor is configured to determine the display position of the mark ([0078] via “In a case where it is determined, for example, that the inter-vehicle time between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the first distance threshold and is equal to or greater than the second distance threshold which is set in advance, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a yellow blinking display or a red lighting display.”).
Kimura is silent on to determine the display position of the mark based on the position information that was detected prior to a timing at which the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeded the second threshold.
However, Minemura teaches to determine the display position of the mark based on the position information that was detected prior to a timing at which the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeded the second threshold ([0179] via “If a target object 60, which was previously detected by the cruise-assist ECU 21, is not detected in a current cycle, the configuration of the cruise-assist ECU 21 stores the previous position of the target object, for example, the position detected in the immediately previous cycle. For this reason, the current position of the target object may be located outside the detection ranges Xlim1 and Xlim2.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Minemura wherein to determine the display position of the mark based on the position information that was detected prior to a timing at which the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeded the second threshold. If the target object goes out of the detectable position range, the position of the target object is still able to be tracked as best as possible by using available known information, a stated above by Minemura.
Regarding Claim 7, modified reference Kimura teaches the display control device of claim 1, wherein the display device is a head-up display ([0031] via “The display projection unit 6 is a head up display [HUD], mounted in the host vehicle, which projects a display of various information onto the windshield W.”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Kimura teaches the display control device of claim 1, wherein the target object is a lead vehicle ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2 causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”).
Kimura is silent on the lead vehicle being under following control performed by adaptive cruise control.
However, Minemura teaches the lead vehicle being under following control performed by adaptive cruise control ([0224] via “In addition, in the situation where the own vehicle 40 is following a preceding vehicle 52 (see FIG. 13), ….”), ([0226] via “The cruise-assist ECU 10
according to each embodiment is configured to avoid a collision of the own vehicle 40 with an object existing in the forward travelling direction of the own vehicle 40 while the own vehicle
40 is travelling in the forward direction, ….”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Minemura of the lead vehicle being under following control performed by adaptive cruise control. Doing so recognizes and controls the own vehicle in order to avoid a potential collision with objects in front of the own vehicle, as stated above by Minemura in paragraph [0226].
Regarding Claim 9, Kimura teaches a display control method of processing executed by a computer ([0059] via “Meanwhile, some of functions of the ECU 2 may be executed in a computer of a facility ….”), the processing comprising:
acquiring position information of a target object ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2 causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the preceding vehicle of Kimura as the target object.);
determining a change in position of the target object ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2
causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”), ([0088] via “Thereafter, the ECU 2
repeats the process again from S101 after the elapse of a time which is set in advance.”), (Note: See Figure 6 of Kimura as well. The Examiner interprets the repeated determination of the inter-vehicle distance as incorporating a recognition of a change in position of the target object.);
determining a first threshold based on a distance to the target object ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”) and the change in position of the target object ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”), ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2 causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”), ([0088] via “Thereafter, the ECU 2 repeats the process again from S101 after the elapse of a time which is set in advance.”);
determining whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”);
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at the position of the target object ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a white display.”), (Note: See Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10 where display P is located at a position corresponding to the target object.);
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the first distance threshold, ….”), determining whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold ([0078] via “In addition, the display control unit 15 may determine the inter-vehicle time using a second distance threshold smaller than the first distance threshold.”);
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object ([0078] via “In a case where it is determined, for example, that the inter-vehicle time between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the second distance threshold, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a red blinking display.”), (Note: See Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10 where display P is located at a position corresponding to the target object.); and
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position ([0078] via “In a case where it is determined, for example, that the inter-vehicle time between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the first distance threshold and is equal to or greater than the second distance threshold which is set in advance, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a yellow blinking display or a red lighting display.”), (Note: See Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10 where display P is located within a position threshold corresponding to the target object.).
Kimura is silent on determining the change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position.
However, Minemura teaches determining the change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position ([0188] via “The collision time calculator 14b predicts the movement trajectory of the target object 60 based on the previous positions 61 and the current position of the target object 60.”), (Note: See Figure 10 of Minemura as well. The Examiner interprets the previous positions 61 of Minemura as the reference position.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Minemura wherein the processing comprises: determining the change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position. Doing so utilizes previously known recognized positions of the target object to determine how far the target object has moved over time, as stated above by Minemura and depicted in Figure 10 of Minemura.
Regarding Claim 10, Kimura teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0054] via “The ECU 2 is an electronic control unit constituted by a central processing unit [CPU], a read only memory [ROM], …, and the like.”) that causes a computer to execute processing ([0059] via “Meanwhile, some of functions of the ECU 2 may be executed in a computer of a facility ….”) comprising:
acquiring position information of a target object ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2 causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the preceding vehicle of Kimura as the target object.);
determining a change in position of the target object ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2
causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”), ([0088] via “Thereafter, the ECU 2
repeats the process again from S101 after the elapse of a time which is set in advance.”), (Note: See Figure 6 of Kimura as well. The Examiner interprets the repeated determination of the inter-vehicle distance as incorporating a recognition of a change in position of the target object.);
determining a first threshold based on a distance to the target object ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”) and the change in position of the target object ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”), ([0085] via “In S102, the ECU 2 causes the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 11 to calculate the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle.”), ([0088] via “Thereafter, the ECU 2 repeats the process again from S101 after the elapse of a time which is set in advance.”);
determining whether a moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”);
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the first threshold, displaying a mark in a display area of a display device at a the position of the target object ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or greater than a first distance threshold which is set in advance, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a white display.”), (Note: See Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10 where display P is located at a position corresponding to the target object.);
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the first threshold ([0077] via “In a case where it is determined that the inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the first distance threshold, ….”), determining whether the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds a second threshold, being less than the first threshold ([0078] via “In addition, the display control unit 15 may determine the inter-vehicle time using a second distance threshold smaller than the first distance threshold.”);
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object does not exceed the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at the position of the target object ([0078] via “In a case where it is determined, for example, that the inter-vehicle time between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the second distance threshold, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a red blinking display.”), (Note: See Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10 where display P is located at a position corresponding to the target object.); and
upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold, displaying the mark in the display area of the display device at a position not greater than the second threshold from the reference position ([0078] via “In a case where it is determined, for example, that the inter-vehicle time between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the first distance threshold and is equal to or greater than the second distance threshold which is set in advance, the display control unit 15 sets the preceding vehicle distance display P to a yellow blinking display or a red lighting display.”), (Note: See Figures 3, 4, 9, and 10 where display P is located within a position threshold corresponding to the target object.).
Kimura is silent on the non-transitory computer-readable medium recorded with a display control program; and determining the change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position.
However, Minemura teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium recorded with a display control program ([0036] via “The CPU of the cruise-assist ECU runs programs installed in the ROM to implement various functions described later.”); and
determining the change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position ([0188] via “The collision time calculator 14b predicts the movement trajectory of the target object 60 based on the previous positions 61 and the current position of the target object 60.”), (Note: See Figure 10 of Minemura as well. The Examiner interprets the previous positions 61 of Minemura as the reference position.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Minemura wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium is recorded with a display control program; and determining the change in position of the target object with respect to a reference position. Doing so incorporates the program to cause the computing elements to perform the functions of the invention, as stated above by Minemura in paragraph [0036]. In addition, doing so utilizes previously known recognized positions of the target object to determine how far the target object has moved over time, as stated above by Minemura in paragraph [0188] and depicted in Figure 10 of Minemura.
13. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 20170036601 A1 hereinafter Kimura) in view of Minemura et al. (US 20180114442 A1 hereinafter Minemura), and further in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20180240258 A1 hereinafter Kosaka).
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Kimura teaches the display control device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, upon determination that the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeds the second threshold ([0078] via “In a case where it is determined, for example, that the inter-vehicle time between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the first distance threshold and is equal to or greater than the second distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”).
Kimura is silent on to make a movement amount of the display position of the mark a pre-set upper limit value or lower [in response to the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeding a threshold].
However, Kosaka teaches to make a movement amount of the display position of the mark a pre-set upper limit value or lower [in response to the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeding a threshold] ([0130] via “As illustrated in FIGS. 8B and 8C, when the preceding vehicle Vp is located on the outer side DOL of the side edge DL of the display area DA, the vehicular display device 100 continues to display the marker image 200
with the predetermined width.”), ([0133] via “FIG. 8E illustrates a relationship between the position of the preceding vehicle Vp and the center (P0, P1) of the marker image 200. As illustrated in FIG. 8E, the center of the marker image 200 is moved toward the side edge DL (or side edge DR) depending on the position of the preceding vehicle Vp. When the center of the marker image 200 reaches the position P0, the marker image 200 is not moved further and is maintained at the position P0 even if the position of the preceding vehicle Vp moves further to the outer side DOL (or outside DOR).”), (Note: See Figures 8 and 11-13 of Kosaka as well. The Examiner interprets position P0 of the marker image 200 of Kosaka as the pre-set upper limit value.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kosaka wherein to make a movement amount of the display position of the mark a pre-set upper limit value or lower [in response to the moving average of the change in position of the target object exceeding a threshold]. When the moving average of the change in position of the target object is large enough to overcome a threshold, doing so prevents unnecessary movement of the display mark when the display device can no longer accurately display the position of the target object, as stated above by Kosaka in paragraph [0133] and shown in Figures 8A-E of Kosaka.
14. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 20170036601 A1 hereinafter Kimura) in view of Minemura et al. (US 20180114442 A1 hereinafter Minemura), and further in view of Kosaka et al. (US 20180240258 A1 hereinafter Kosaka) and Takatsudo et al. (US 20140226015 A1 hereinafter Takatsudo).
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Kimura teaches the display control device of claim 1, wherein: the first threshold and the second threshold are set separately ([0078] via “In a case where it is determined, for example, that the inter-vehicle time between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is less than the first distance threshold and is equal to or greater than the second distance threshold which is set in advance, ….”).
Kimura is silent on wherein: the first threshold and the second threshold are set separately in a vehicle width direction and in a vehicle height direction; and the processor is configured to: set a display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction to a position corresponding to a position of the target object for the vehicle width direction, as represented by the position information, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle width direction is a first specific value or lower for the vehicle width direction, set the display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction such that movement of the display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction in the display area of the display device is limited, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle width direction has exceeded a second specific value for the vehicle width direction, and also set a display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction to a position corresponding to a position of the target object for the vehicle height direction, as represented by the position information, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle height direction is a first specific value or lower for the vehicle height direction, and set the display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction such that movement of the display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction in the display area of the display device is limited, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle height direction has exceeded a second specific value for the vehicle height direction.
However, Kosaka teaches the first threshold and the second threshold are set separately in a vehicle width direction and in a vehicle height direction ([0042] via “The determiner 120
determines whether the preceding vehicle Vp is located in the display area DA or not, based on the position of the preceding vehicle Vp detected by the preceding vehicle detector 110. Specifically, the determiner 120 is configured by a left-right difference calculator 121 and an area inside-outside determiner 123.”), (Note: See Figures 1 and 4-13 of Kosaka as well. The Examiner interprets the width direction as the lateral direction and the height direction as the depth direction.); and the processor is configured to:
set a display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction to a position corresponding to a position of the target object for the vehicle width direction, as represented by the position information, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle width direction is a first specific value or lower for the vehicle width direction ([0129] via “As illustrated in FIG. 8A, when the preceding vehicle Vp is located in the display area DA, the vehicular display device 100 displays the marker image 200 with a predetermined width below the preceding vehicle Vp. Moreover, the center P1 of the marker image 200 in the width direction matches the center of the preceding vehicle Vp in the width direction.”), (Note: See Figure 8A of Kosaka as well.), and
set the display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction such that movement of the display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction in the display area of the display device is limited, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle width direction has exceeded a second specific value for the vehicle width direction ([0130] via “As illustrated in FIGS. 8B and 8C, when the preceding vehicle Vp is located on the outer side DOL of the side edge DL of the display area DA, the vehicular display device 100 continues to display the marker image 200 with the predetermined width.”), ([0133] via “FIG. 8E illustrates a relationship between the position of the preceding vehicle Vp and the center (P0, P1) of the marker image 200. As illustrated in FIG. 8E, the center of the marker image 200 is moved toward the side edge DL (or side edge DR) depending on the position of the preceding vehicle Vp. When the center of the marker image 200 reaches the position P0, the marker image 200 is not moved further and is maintained at the position P0 even if the position of the preceding vehicle Vp moves further to the outer side DOL (or outside DOR).”), (Note: See Figures 8B-C of Kosaka as well.).
Further, Takatsudo teaches the processor is configured to: to set a display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction to a position corresponding to a position of the target object for the vehicle height direction, as represented by the position information, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle height direction is a first specific value or lower for the vehicle height direction ([0089] via “On the other hand, as shown in FIG. 9, when the person 110 is close to the vehicle 12 and the person 110 (biological area 74) exists on one of the first boundary lines 92L, a biological icon (human icon 86) is displayed at two locations on the MID 28, thereby indicating the person 110 in a highlighted manner to the driver.”), (Note: See Figure 9 of Takatsudo as well. The Examiner interprets the person 110 of Takatsudo being ‘close’ to the vehicle as satisfying the first specific value or lower.), and
set the display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction such that movement of the display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction in the display area of the display device is limited, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle height direction has exceeded a second specific value for the vehicle height direction ([0089] via “As shown in FIG. 8, when the person 110 is far from the vehicle 12 and the person 110 (biological area 74) exists on one of the first boundary lines 92L, a biological icon (human icon 86) is displayed at one location on the MID 28. On the other hand, as shown in FIG. 9, when the person 110 is close to the vehicle 12 and the person 110 (biological area 74) exists on one of the first boundary lines 92L, a biological icon (human icon 86) is displayed at two locations on the MID 28, thereby indicating the person 110 in a highlighted manner to the driver.”), (Note: See Figure 8 of Takatsudo as well. The Examiner interprets the person 110 of Takatsudo being ‘far’ to the vehicle as satisfying the second specific value or higher.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kosaka wherein: the first threshold and the second threshold are set separately in a vehicle width direction and in a vehicle height direction; and the processor is configured to: set a display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction to a position corresponding to a position of the target object for the vehicle width direction, as represented by the position information, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle width direction is a first specific value or lower for the vehicle width direction, and set the display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction such that movement of the display position of the mark for the vehicle width direction in the display area of the display device is limited, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle width direction has exceeded a second specific value for the vehicle width direction. When the moving average of the change in position of the target object is small enough, doing so accurately tracks the position of the target object, as stated above by Kosaka in paragraph [0129] and shown in Figure 8A of Kosaka, and when the moving average of the change in position of the target object is large enough to overcome a threshold, doing so prevents unnecessary movement of the display mark when the display device can no longer accurately display the position of the target object, as stated above by Kosaka in paragraph [0133] and shown in Figures 8A-E of Kosaka.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takatsudo wherein: the processor is configured to: also set a display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction to a position corresponding to a position of the target object for the vehicle height direction, as represented by the position information, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle height direction is a first specific value or lower for the vehicle height direction, and set the display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction such that movement of the display position of the mark for the vehicle height direction in the display area of the display device is limited, when the moving average of the change in position of the target object in the vehicle height direction has exceeded a second specific value for the vehicle height direction. As the position of the target object is closer and more threatening to the vehicle, the target object is displayed both more accurate in position and in a manner to be apparent to the driver, whereas when the position of the target object is further from and less threatening to the vehicle, only the rough position of the target object is displayed, as stated above by Takatsudo.
Examiner’s Note
15. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights