DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the display control section in claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification of PG-Pub US 20250218065 A1 of the instant application shows “[0037] The control unit 21 includes one or a plurality of electronic control units (ECUs). [0067] FIG. 4 illustrates a configuration example of functions to be implemented by the control unit 21. The control unit 21 includes an information acquisition section 151, a vehicle control section 152, and a display control section 153”. Therefore, the corresponding structure of the display control section is ECUs.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAHATA et al. (US 20250010719).
Regarding claim 1, YAHATA discloses An information processing apparatus comprising a display control section that controls display of a driving assistance image obtained by adding, to a view indicating a state of a periphery of a vehicle, assistance information that is added to an object within the view and assists driving (“[0081] FIG. 4 is a diagram for describing an example of a safe driving assist method for the vehicle 1. FIGS. 4, 5, 6, and 7 illustrate the same scene. FIG. 4 is a diagram of the vehicle 1 (hereinafter also referred to as own vehicle) viewed from above in accordance with the notation of FIG. 3. FIGS. 5, 6, and 7 are diagrams of the scene viewed from the inside of the vehicle. [0112] FIGS. 8 and 9 illustrate other patterns of the marker display 37. FIG. 8 illustrates a state in which an arc-shaped animation marker 371 using an animation effect of reducing a radius centering on the dangerous object (the bicycle 12) is displayed around the dangerous object in order to attract the attention of the driver. In this example, the display of the arc-shaped animation marker 371 is controlled by (an optical system of a head-up display of) the information input/output unit 104 to form an image on a virtual image plane seemingly pasted to the ground.”), and
controls a color and a shape of the assistance information based on a state of the object with respect to the vehicle (“[0315] As described with reference to FIGS. 42 and 43, when a second vehicle (the other vehicle 13) located in front of the first vehicle (the vehicle 1) is determined to be a first dangerous object, the information presentation method in the present embodiment displays, on a head-up display mounted on a first vehicle, a first marker (a semi-arc marker 377) for alerting the driver of the first dangerous object, acquires, from the second vehicle, via a communication network, traveling information indicating a traveling state of the second vehicle, and changes at least one of a shape, a color, and a pattern of the first marker in accordance with the traveling state of the second vehicle”).
On the other hand, the above embodiment of YAHATA fails to explicitly disclose but another embodiment of YAHATA discloses a display control section that controls display of a driving assistance image obtained by adding, to an image indicating a state of a periphery of a vehicle, assistance information (“[0121] a panel smaller than the windshield 24 may be installed in front of the driver, one or more of the windshield 24, the left and right side mirrors 23, the rearview mirror 26, and the left and right windows may be laid out in an arrangement viewed from the driver's seat, and the arrow mark 38 and the marker display 37 may be performed therein. Alternatively, a virtual viewpoint video obtained by overlooking the surroundings of the own vehicle from above may be generated by the arithmetic operation unit 106 based on data acquired from the sensor unit 103 and/or the communication unit 108 and may be displayed on the information input/output unit 104 (for example, a video display unit in the vicinity of the cockpit 17). At this time, it is conceivable to plainly mark and display a dangerous object such that the driver can check at a glance where a dangerous object having a risk of a predetermined amount or more is present in the virtual viewpoint video”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the two embodiments of YAHATA, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, applying the markers of the first embodiment of YAHATA to the display panel in the second embodiment of YAHATA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the driver can check at a glance where a dangerous object having a risk of a predetermined amount or more is present in the virtual viewpoint video (YAHATA, [0121]).
Regarding claim(s) 10, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 2, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
YAHATA further discloses wherein the assistance information includes an outline that encloses at least part of a periphery of the object (“[0112] FIGS. 8 and 9 illustrate other patterns of the marker display 37. FIG. 8 illustrates a state in which an arc-shaped animation marker 371 using an animation effect of reducing a radius centering on the dangerous object (the bicycle 12) is displayed around the dangerous object in order to attract the attention of the driver”).
Regarding claim 3, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 2.
YAHATA further discloses wherein the outline encloses at least part of the periphery of the object on a ground around the object (“[0112] the display of the arc-shaped animation marker 371 is controlled by (an optical system of a head-up display of) the information input/output unit 104 to form an image on a virtual image plane seemingly pasted to the ground”).
Regarding claim 4, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 3.
YAHATA further discloses wherein the display control section controls a shape of the outline based on a moving direction of the object with respect to the vehicle (fig.42, “[0323] While the risk is “high”, with respect to the other vehicle, a red semi-arc marker 379 is displayed on the front side surface of the other vehicle 13 in parallel to the ground from the front direction. In order to indicate that the other vehicle 13 is moving forward higher speed, the semi-arc marker 379 is drawn with an arc to have a larger width on the traveling direction side (the front side in this drawing) of the other vehicle 13 and visually informs the driver that the other vehicle 13 is moving forward.”).
Regarding claim 5, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
YAHATA further discloses wherein in a case where the object moves in an interrupting direction in which the object cuts into a traveling direction of the vehicle, the display control section expands the outline in the interrupting direction (“[0323] At t2 when time has elapsed a little from time t1, it is detected that the own vehicle continues traveling straight but the other vehicle 13 on the front left side is also about to move forward and merge. In this state, the risk of collision is high and the risk rises to “high”. While the risk is “high”, with respect to the other vehicle, a red semi-arc marker 379 is displayed on the front side surface of the other vehicle 13 in parallel to the ground from the front direction. In order to indicate that the other vehicle 13 is moving forward higher speed, the semi-arc marker 379 is drawn with an arc to have a larger width on the traveling direction side (the front side in this drawing) of the other vehicle 13 and visually informs the driver that the other vehicle 13 is moving forward. Further, a marker such as an arrow 380 indicating an expected traveling route of the other vehicle 13 may be displayed in order to plainly indicate to the driver that the other vehicle 13 is about to merge”).
Regarding claim 6, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 3.
YAHATA further discloses wherein the outline encloses a portion close to the vehicle, of the object (fig.42, “[0323] While the risk is “high”, with respect to the other vehicle, a red semi-arc marker 379 is displayed on the front side surface of the other vehicle 13 in parallel to the ground from the front direction. In order to indicate that the other vehicle 13 is moving forward higher speed, the semi-arc marker 379 is drawn with an arc to have a larger width on the traveling direction side (the front side in this drawing) of the other vehicle 13 and visually informs the driver that the other vehicle 13 is moving forward”).
Regarding claim 7, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
YAHATA further discloses wherein the display control section controls at least one of the color or the shape of the assistance information based on a degree of risk of the object coming into collision or contact with the vehicle (“[0319] In this state, there is a risk of collision and the risk rises to “medium”. While the risk is “medium”, an orange semi-arc marker 378 is displayed with respect to the other vehicle 13 on the front side surface of the other vehicle 13 from the front direction in parallel to the ground. [0323] While the risk is “high”, with respect to the other vehicle, a red semi-arc marker 379 is displayed on the front side surface of the other vehicle 13 in parallel to the ground from the front direction”).
Regarding claim 8, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 7.
YAHATA further discloses wherein the degree of risk is based on a distance between the vehicle and the object (“[0075] In order to simplify the description, it is assumed that a risk is determined for the vehicle 1 on the basis of the distance from the point Oc to an object around the vehicle. [0194] The conditions are divided into four stages of a high risk, a medium risk, a low risk, and safe in accordance with the distance from the left vehicle 1 to a dangerous object 39 (or a collision postponed time or the like)”).
Regarding claim 9, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
YAHATA further discloses the display control section generates the driving assistance image by computer graphics, and the driving assistance image includes an image of the vehicle (“[0080] The arithmetic operation unit 106 performs notification to the driver via the information input/output unit 104 based on the determination and instructs the movable unit 101 to perform emergency braking of the vehicle in order to avoid an accident. [0081] FIG. 4 is a diagram for describing an example of a safe driving assist method for the vehicle 1. [0082] FIG. 4 is a scene in which the vehicle 1 travels forward while curving to the right along a road from straight traveling”).
Regarding claim 11, YAHATA discloses An information processing apparatus comprising a display control section that controls display of a driving assistance image obtained by adding, to a view indicating a state of a periphery of a vehicle, assistance information grounded or displayed on a ground for assisting driving (“[0081] FIG. 4 is a diagram for describing an example of a safe driving assist method for the vehicle 1. FIGS. 4, 5, 6, and 7 illustrate the same scene. FIG. 4 is a diagram of the vehicle 1 (hereinafter also referred to as own vehicle) viewed from above in accordance with the notation of FIG. 3. FIGS. 5, 6, and 7 are diagrams of the scene viewed from the inside of the vehicle. [0112] FIGS. 8 and 9 illustrate other patterns of the marker display 37. FIG. 8 illustrates a state in which an arc-shaped animation marker 371 using an animation effect of reducing a radius centering on the dangerous object (the bicycle 12) is displayed around the dangerous object in order to attract the attention of the driver. In this example, the display of the arc-shaped animation marker 371 is controlled by (an optical system of a head-up display of) the information input/output unit 104 to form an image on a virtual image plane seemingly pasted to the ground”).
On the other hand, the above embodiment of YAHATA fails to explicitly disclose but another embodiment of YAHATA discloses a display control section that controls display of a driving assistance image obtained by adding, to an image indicating a state of a periphery of a vehicle, assistance information (“[0121] a panel smaller than the windshield 24 may be installed in front of the driver, one or more of the windshield 24, the left and right side mirrors 23, the rearview mirror 26, and the left and right windows may be laid out in an arrangement viewed from the driver's seat, and the arrow mark 38 and the marker display 37 may be performed therein. Alternatively, a virtual viewpoint video obtained by overlooking the surroundings of the own vehicle from above may be generated by the arithmetic operation unit 106 based on data acquired from the sensor unit 103 and/or the communication unit 108 and may be displayed on the information input/output unit 104 (for example, a video display unit in the vicinity of the cockpit 17). At this time, it is conceivable to plainly mark and display a dangerous object such that the driver can check at a glance where a dangerous object having a risk of a predetermined amount or more is present in the virtual viewpoint video”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the two embodiments of YAHATA, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, applying the markers of the first embodiment of YAHATA to the display panel in the second embodiment of YAHATA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the driver can check at a glance where a dangerous object having a risk of a predetermined amount or more is present in the virtual viewpoint video (YAHATA, [0121]).
Regarding claim(s) 20, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 11.
Regarding claim 12, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 11.
YAHATA further discloses wherein the assistance information includes a virtual object grounded or displayed on the ground for reducing a speed or preventing traveling of the vehicle (“[0112] the display of the arc-shaped animation marker 371 is controlled by (an optical system of a head-up display of) the information input/output unit 104 to form an image on a virtual image plane seemingly pasted to the ground. [0150] The arithmetic operation unit 106 of the vehicle 1 notifies the user of danger via the information input/output unit 104 such that the user performs immediate vehicle control for avoiding an accident. The medium risk is a risk at which the vehicle 1 warns the driver with the sound alert 36 or the like to immediately perform risk avoidance driving operation such as brake operation. [0270] FIG. 29 is the same as FIG. 27 but is different in that the markers 125/the virtual image plane 126 are displayed/arranged parallel to the ground 124 or in the direction perpendicular to the gravity direction. A first road surface region is a road surface region at a position closer to the driver than a region where the first dangerous object (the target object 123) is grounded on the road surface (the ground 124). The first marker (the marker 125) is presented to the driver as a virtual image (the virtual image plane 126) overlapping with the first road surface region”).
Regarding claim 19, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 11.
YAHATA further discloses the display control section generates the driving assistance image by computer graphics, and the driving assistance image includes an image of the vehicle (“[0080] The arithmetic operation unit 106 performs notification to the driver via the information input/output unit 104 based on the determination and instructs the movable unit 101 to perform emergency braking of the vehicle in order to avoid an accident. [0081] FIG. 4 is a diagram for describing an example of a safe driving assist method for the vehicle 1. [0082] FIG. 4 is a scene in which the vehicle 1 travels forward while curving to the right along a road from straight traveling”).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAHATA et al. (US 20250010719) in view of Lau et al. (US 20250083676).
Regarding claim 13, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 12.
On the other hand, YAHATA fails to explicitly disclose but Lau discloses wherein the virtual object is used to prevent entry or reduce an approaching speed to an intersection (“[0085] At operation 408, the process 400 generates a virtual stop line for the host vehicle. The virtual stop line represents the furthest point, in the current lane that the host vehicle is travelling in, that the host vehicle can travel before entering the intersection. [0089] At operation 412, the process 400 sets the target speed so the host vehicle stops at the virtual stop line. [0112] the proactive trajectory planner 912 may use this information to determine that the host vehicle should proceed (e.g., edge) past the virtual stop line 702 at a reduced speed determined at operation 414 to ensure that the path is clear before accelerating to match the strategic speed plan 904A when possible (e.g., at operation 420)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Lau and YAHATA, to include all limitations of claim 13. That is, adding the virtual stop line of Lau to the vehicle display of YAHATA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been proactive risk mitigation may be used that considers the reactive capabilities of the vehicle in planning a proactive trajectory for the vehicle that minimizes speed and/or lateral changes in movement responsive to a potential hazard while still allowing for a comfortable and safe reactive response (i.e., a reactive trajectory) in the event a hazard object interferes with the path of the vehicle (Lau, [0025]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAHATA et al. (US 20250010719) in view of Lau et al. (US 20250083676), and further in view of Bhat et al. (US 20180018873).
Regarding claim 14, YAHATA in view of Lau discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 13.
On the other hand, YAHATA in view of Lau fails to explicitly disclose but Bhat discloses wherein the display control section adapts a color of the virtual object to a color of a traffic light provided at the intersection (“[0006] The system includes: program instructions to detect that a vehicle is stopped at an intersection with a traffic signal. The displayed information includes one of: a background color the same as a color of a light illuminated at the traffic signal; an icon showing the color of the light illuminated at the traffic signal”. Claim 12, “the determined target display device to display a traffic signal icon that displays a color that is the same as a color of a light illuminated at the traffic signal”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Bhat into the combination of Lau and YAHATA, to include all limitations of claim 14. That is, applying the virtual object color based on the traffic light color of Bhat to the virtual object of Lau and YAHATA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been alerting a driver stopped at a traffic signal when the light changes (Bhat, [0001]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAHATA et al. (US 20250010719) in view of Lau et al. (US 20250083676), and further in view of Bhat et al. (US 20180018873) and Qiu et al. (US 20220358315).
Regarding claim 15, YAHATA in view of Lau and Bhat discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the display control section adapts a color of the virtual object to the color of the traffic light, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, YAHATA in view of Lau and Bhat fails to explicitly disclose but Qiu discloses the assistance information includes an outline that encloses at least part of a periphery of the traffic light (“[0009] The first computer is programmed to provide data from the image sensor to a machine learning program that outputs a bounding box around an object; cause the bounding box around the object to be displayed via the HMI. [0019] The computer 104 can further include program instructions to provide data from the image sensor to a machine learning program included in the data collection module 122 that detects an object and outputs a bounding box 134 for the object that can be displayed around the object. [0040] In the present context, a first machine learning program included in a collection module 122 can be a DNN 138 trained with ground truth data label to specify real-world objects, e.g., cars, trucks, trees, roadsigns, traffic lights, etc. The DNN 138 can be trained to output a candidate object 132 and a bounding box 134 for a candidate object 132, along with one or more candidate labels 136.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Qiu into the combination of Lau and YAHATA, and Bhat, to include all limitations of claim 15. That is, adding the bounding box of traffic lights of Qiu to the virtual object of Bhat, Lau and YAHATA. Therefore, the display control section adapts a color of the outline to the color of the traffic light. The motivation/ suggestion would have been data from image sensors in a vehicle can be provided to a vehicle computer that can detect and/or identify objects based on a machine learning program, whereby the computer is aided in controlling and/or assisting vehicle operations (Qiu, [0001]).
Claim(s) 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAHATA et al. (US 20250010719) in view of SAKUMA et al. (US 20220084458).
Regarding claim 16, YAHATA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 11.
On the other hand, YAHATA fails to explicitly disclose but SAKUMA discloses wherein the assistance information includes a virtual object grounded on the ground in a traveling direction of the vehicle and indicating a course of the vehicle (“[0117] Further, in the present embodiment, when the vehicle A enters the intersection range PT, the route notification virtual image 17 indicating the exit direction is displayed on the front road surface including the guide point GP”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined SAKUMA and YAHATA, to include all limitations of claim 16. That is, adding the route notification virtual image of SAKUMA to the vehicle display of YAHATA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the driver who visually recognizes the route notification virtual image 17 can smoothly turn left or right at the guide point GP after recognizing the road to be exited (SAKUMA, [0117]).
Regarding claim 18, YAHATA in view of SAKUMA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 16.
On the other hand, YAHATA fails to explicitly disclose but SAKUMA discloses wherein the virtual object is grounded on the ground within a lane on which the vehicle is traveling within an intersection located in the traveling direction (“[0117] Further, in the present embodiment, when the vehicle A enters the intersection range PT, the route notification virtual image 17 indicating the exit direction is displayed on the front road surface including the guide point GP”). The same motivation of claim 16 applies here.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAHATA et al. (US 20250010719) in view of SAKUMA et al. (US 20220084458), and further in view of TANAKA et al. (US 20190005727).
Regarding claim 17, YAHATA in view of SAKUMA discloses The information processing apparatus according to claim 16.
On the other hand, YAHATA in view of SAKUMA fails to explicitly disclose but TANAKA discloses wherein the assistance information includes a shadow of the virtual object displayed on the ground (“[0091] Accordingly, display system 10 displays virtual image 326 representing the shadow with a depth along road surface 600 to make it easy for user 200 to gain a sense of distance to the reference point”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined TANAKA into the combination of SAKUMA and YAHATA, to include all limitations of claim 17. That is, adding the virtual image representing the shadow of TANAKA to the virtual image of SAKUMA and YAHATA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to make it easy for user 200 to gain a sense of distance to the reference point (TANAKA, [0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights