DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-23 are presented for examination.
Priority
The Applicants’ claim for priority based upon Japanese Patent Application JP2023-216051 filed on December 21, 2023 has been noted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 19, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most similar art of record, Fujita et al., discloses an instrument panel display having an ECU with a memory used for controlling the display on a panel (paragraphs 0067-0071 and paragraph 0074), a vehicle shown on a display where the vehicle is in the foreground (figure 7A and paragraph 0095), an arrangement of lines arranged such that their appearance is curved where the lines are the same with of displayed vehicle while having curved lines orthogonal to the vehicle’s plane (figure 7A and paragraph 0095). However, no art of record discloses adjust the spacing between the partial images along the vehicle width direction and the number of the partial images so that the spacing, along the vehicle width direction, between the partial images in the reduced image of the marker becomes greater than a resolution of an eye.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0022485] in view of Matsunobu [U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0013991].
With regard to claim 1, Fujita et al. meets the limitations of:
a display control device comprising a memory [an instrument panel display having an ECU with a memory used for controlling the display on a panel (paragraphs 0067-0071 and paragraph 0074)]
a processor coupled to the memory and configured to display a marker in a display area of a display device in a position corresponding to an object included in a foreground of a vehicle visible through the display area of the display device or in an image resembling the foreground of the vehicle displayed in the display area of the display device [a vehicle shown on a display where the vehicle is in the foreground (figure 7A and paragraph 0095)]
wherein the marker comprising having sides along a lengthwise direction of the partial images that are not parallel to a vehicle vertical direction [an arrangement of lines arranged such that their appearance is curved where the lines are the same with of displayed vehicle while having curved lines orthogonal to the vehicle’s plane (figure 7A and paragraph 0095)]
However, Fujita et al. fails to disclose of a plurality of partial images lined up next to and spaced apart from each other in a vehicle width direction. In the field of object detection systems, Matsunobu teaches:
a plurality of partial images lined up next to and spaced apart from each other in a vehicle width direction [images of a road surface and vehicles arranged in a vehicle width direction (paragraphs 0038, 0044, 0048, 0049, and figure 4)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Fujita et al. and Matsunobu to create a display system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle’s display system displays partial images of objects in a width-wise direction in order to convey a panoramic field of detected obstacles to a driver in order to alert said driver wherein the motivation to combine is to display information regarding a detected preceding vehicle (Fujita et al., paragraph 0007).
With regard to claim 2, Fujita et al. fails to disclose of the partial images are arranged at an even spacing in the vehicle width direction. In the field of object detection systems, Matsunobu teaches:
the partial images are arranged at an even spacing in the vehicle width direction [images of a road surface and vehicles arranged in a vehicle width direction (paragraphs 0038, 0044, 0048, 0049, and figure 4)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Fujita et al. and Matsunobu to create a display system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle’s display system displays partial images of objects in a width-wise direction in order to convey a panoramic field of detected obstacles to a driver in order to alert said driver wherein the motivation to combine is to display information regarding a detected preceding vehicle (Fujita et al., paragraph 0007).
With regard to claim 3, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
the partial images each have a shape where one of a vehicle vertical direction upper end portion and lower end portion of the partial image is parallel to the vehicle width direction, while the other is parallel to the vehicle vertical direction [an arrangement of lines arranged such that their appearance is curved where the lines are the same with of displayed vehicle and evenly spaced while being parallel to the displayed vehicle (figure 7A and paragraph 0095)]
With regard to claim 4, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
the marker is bilaterally asymmetrical in the vehicle width direction [an arrangement of lines arranged such that their appearance is curved where the lines are the same with of displayed vehicle and evenly spaced while being parallel to the displayed vehicle (figure 7A and paragraph 0095)]
With regard to claim 5, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
the processor is configured to: acquire a confidence value associated with perception of the position of the object; and change a display mode of the marker based on the acquired confidence value [the image of a vehicle appearing closer to a driver by displaying less segmented lines based upon the detection of a vehicle by a vehicle system (paragraphs 0092-0094 and figure 6A)]
With regard to claim 6, Fujita et al. meets the limitations of:
the processor is configured to: acquire a vehicle vertical direction confidence value associated with perception of the position of the object [the image of a vehicle appearing closer to a driver by displaying less segmented lines based upon the detection of a vehicle by a vehicle system (paragraphs 0092-0094)]
change the display mode of the marker by changing a vehicle vertical direction width of the marker based on the acquired vehicle vertical direction confidence value [the image of a vehicle appearing closer to a driver by displaying less segmented lines based upon the detection of a vehicle by a vehicle system (paragraphs 0092-0094 and figure 6A) where the placement of the vehicle is based upon the detection of said vehicle using an onboard LIDAR (paragraphs 0080 and 0081)]
With regard to claim 7, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
the processor is configured to increase the vehicle vertical direction width of the marker as the acquired vehicle vertical direction confidence value becomes lower [a vehicle appearing farther away (figure 7A) where the placement of the vehicle is based upon the detection of said vehicle using an onboard LIDAR (paragraphs 0080 and 0081)]
With regard to claim 11, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
the display device is a head-up display [a display being projected onto the windshield in front of a vehicle operator (paragraph 0071)]
With regard to claim 12, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
a display control device comprising a memory [an instrument panel display having an ECU with a memory used for controlling the display on a panel (paragraphs 0067-0071 and paragraph 0074)]
a processor coupled to the memory [an instrument panel display having an ECU with a memory used for controlling the display on a panel (paragraphs 0067-0071 and paragraph 0074)]
display a marker in a display area of a display device in a position corresponding to an object included in a foreground of a vehicle visible through the display area of the display device or in an image resembling the foreground of the vehicle displayed in the display area of the display device [a vehicle shown on a display where the vehicle is in the foreground (figure 7A and paragraph 0095)]
wherein the marker having a polygonal shape with short sides that are positioned on vehicle width direction end portion sides of the marker and are not parallel to a vehicle vertical direction [an arrangement of lines arranged such that their appearance is curved where the lines are the same with of displayed vehicle while having curved lines orthogonal to the vehicle’s plane (figure 7A and paragraph 0095)]
However, Fujita et al. fails to disclose of a polygonal shape with short sides that are positioned on vehicle width direction end portion sides of the marker. In the field of object detection systems, Matsunobu teaches:
a polygonal shape with short sides that are positioned on vehicle width direction end portion sides of the marker [images of a road surface and vehicles with polygons surrounding detected vehicles arranged in a vehicle width direction (paragraphs 0038, 0044, 0048, 0049, and figure 4)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the elements of Fujita et al. and Matsunobu to create a display system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle’s display system displays partial images of objects in a width-wise direction in order to convey a panoramic field of detected obstacles to a driver in order to alert said driver wherein the motivation to combine is to display information regarding a detected preceding vehicle (Fujita et al., paragraph 0007).
With regard to claim 13, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
the marker is bilaterally asymmetrical in the vehicle width direction [an arrangement of lines arranged such that their appearance is curved where the lines are the same with of displayed vehicle and evenly spaced while being parallel to the displayed vehicle (figure 7A and paragraph 0095)]
With regard to claim 14, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
the processor is configured to acquire a confidence value associated with perception of the position of the object; and change a display mode of the marker based on the acquired confidence value [the image of a vehicle appearing closer to a driver by displaying less segmented lines based upon the detection of a vehicle by a vehicle system (paragraphs 0092-0094 and figure 6A)]
With regard to claim 15, Fujita et al. meets the limitations of:
the processor is configured to: acquire a vehicle vertical direction confidence value associated with perception of the position of the object [the image of a vehicle appearing closer to a driver by displaying less segmented lines based upon the detection of a vehicle by a vehicle system (paragraphs 0092-0094)]
change the display mode of the marker by changing a vehicle vertical direction width of the marker based on the acquired vehicle vertical direction confidence value [the image of a vehicle appearing closer to a driver by displaying less segmented lines based upon the detection of a vehicle by a vehicle system (paragraphs 0092-0094 and figure 6A) where the placement of the vehicle is based upon the detection of said vehicle using an onboard LIDAR (paragraphs 0080 and 0081)]
With regard to claim 16, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
processor is configured to increase the vehicle vertical direction width of the marker as the acquired vehicle vertical direction confidence value becomes lower [a vehicle appearing farther away (figure 7A) where the placement of the vehicle is based upon the detection of said vehicle using an onboard LIDAR (paragraphs 0080 and 0081)]
With regard to claim 19, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
the display device is a head-up display [a display being projected onto the windshield in front of a vehicle operator (paragraph 0071)]
With regard to claim 20, please refer to the rejection for claim 1 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 21, please refer to the rejection for claim 12 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 22, please refer to the rejection for claim 1 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
With regard to claim 23, please refer to the rejection for claim 12 as the citations meet the limitations of the present claim.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0022485] in view of Matsunobu [U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0013991], and in further view of Kwon et al. [U.S Patent Publication 2021/0323404]
With regard to claim 8, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
acquire a vehicle width direction confidence value associated with perception of the position of the object [the placement of the displayed vehicle being based upon the detection of said vehicle using an onboard LIDAR (paragraphs 0080 and 0081) where the vehicle can appear far away or nearby (figures 6A and 7B)]
However, the combination of Fujita et al. and Matsunobu fails to disclose of changing the display mode of the marker by changing shades of color of the marker in the vehicle width direction. In the field of display systems, Kwon et al. teaches:
changing the display mode of the marker by changing shades of color of the marker in the vehicle width direction [the application of a gradient effect of a color depending on a distance for each section (paragraph 0025 and figure 12)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Fujita et al., Matsunobu, and Kwon et al. to create a display system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle’s display uses a color gradient in addition to the display of a detected vehicle to convey the closeness of the vehicle with the operator’s vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to display information regarding a detected preceding vehicle (Fujita et al., paragraph 0007).
With regard to claim 9, the combination of Fujita et al. and Matsunobu fails to disclose of the processor is configured to increase a ratio, along the vehicle width direction, of light-colored portions of the marker such that the color is light as the acquired vehicle width direction confidence value becomes lower. In the field of display systems, Kwon et al. teaches:
the processor is configured to increase a ratio, along the vehicle width direction, of light-colored portions of the marker such that the color is light as the acquired vehicle width direction confidence value becomes lower [the application of a gradient effect of a color depending on a distance for each section (paragraph 0025 and figure 12) where the controller may increase a degree of the highlight effect of the path line as it approaches the destination (paragraph 0076)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Fujita et al., Matsunobu, and Kwon et al. to create a display system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle’s display uses a color gradient in addition to the display of a detected vehicle to convey the closeness of the vehicle with the operator’s vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to display information regarding a detected preceding vehicle (Fujita et al., paragraph 0007).
With regard to claim 17, Fujita et al. meets the limitation of:
acquire a vehicle width direction confidence value associated with perception of the position of the object [the placement of the displayed vehicle being based upon the detection of said vehicle using an onboard LIDAR (paragraphs 0080 and 0081) where the vehicle can appear far away or nearby (figures 6A and 7B)]
However, the combination of Fujita et al. and Matsunobu fails to disclose of changing the display mode of the marker by changing shades of color of the marker in the vehicle width direction. In the field of display systems, Kwon et al. teaches:
changing the display mode of the marker by changing shades of color of the marker in the vehicle width direction [the application of a gradient effect of a color depending on a distance for each section (paragraph 0025 and figure 12)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Fujita et al., Matsunobu, and Kwon et al. to create a display system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle’s display uses a color gradient in addition to the display of a detected vehicle to convey the closeness of the vehicle with the operator’s vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to display information regarding a detected preceding vehicle (Fujita et al., paragraph 0007).
With regard to claim 18, the combination of Fujita et al. and Matsunobu fails to disclose of the processor being configured to increase a ratio, along the vehicle width direction, of light-colored portions of the marker such that the color is light as the acquired vehicle width direction confidence value becomes lower. In the field of display systems, Kwon et al. teaches:
the processor is configured to increase a ratio, along the vehicle width direction, of light-colored portions of the marker such that the color is light as the acquired vehicle width direction confidence value becomes lower [the application of a gradient effect of a color depending on a distance for each section (paragraph 0025 and figure 12) where the controller may increase a degree of the highlight effect of the path line as it approaches the destination (paragraph 0076)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Fujita et al., Matsunobu, and Kwon et al. to create a display system for a vehicle wherein the vehicle’s display uses a color gradient in addition to the display of a detected vehicle to convey the closeness of the vehicle with the operator’s vehicle wherein the motivation to combine is to display information regarding a detected preceding vehicle (Fujita et al., paragraph 0007).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0049724 to Kimura et al. discloses a head-up display device, navigation device, and display method.
U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0196184 to Takizawa et al. discloses a display system.
U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0299855 to Ostapenko discloses a vehicle proximity system using heads-up display augmented reality graphics elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/TRAVIS R HUNNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights