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 .
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: “control unit” and “display unit” in claims 1-5, “operation unit” in claims 4-5”, “contact unit” of claim 4 and “communication unit” of claim 5.
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.
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.
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, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume et al. (WO 2022/168540 A1, hereinafter “Kume”) (citations are made with respect to U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0373309 A1 as the national stage counterpart and corresponding English translation) in view of Sugiura (JP 6699344 B2) (citations are made with respect to the corresponding English translation enclosed within this Office Action).
For claim 1, Kume discloses an information processing device comprising a control unit configured to cause a display unit to display an image showing a host vehicle and surroundings of the host vehicle as viewed from a virtual viewpoint, based on surroundings information regarding the surroundings, and configured to display images of vehicles (disclosing a display control device as an information processing device including a display control unit for controlling a display device as a display unit to display an image showing a host vehicle and a traveling environment as surroundings of the host vehicle as viewed from a virtual camera and virtual viewpoint based on surroundings information of the surroundings captured by sensors such as a camera (Figs. 6-12; par. 38, 68, 82, 143 and 150); explaining the display device is configured display icons as images of other vehicles surrounding the host vehicle (Figs. 6-12; par. 68-69)).
Kume does not disclose, when a registered vehicle registered in advance is detected, displaying the registered vehicle in a manner different from a manner in displaying another vehicle different from the registered vehicle.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Sugiura.
Sugiura similarly discloses a system and method for displaying an image of a surrounding environment of a vehicle as captured by a camera mounted to the vehicle (pages 1-2). Sugiura explains its system registers an object model in advance to detect a vehicle as a registered vehicle to distinguish the registered vehicle from other vehicles (pages 3-4). Sugiura further explains the detected registered vehicle may be displayed in a different manner from other vehicles such as by highlighting the registered vehicle so as to be surrounded by a frame (pages 5-6). It follows Kume may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Sugiura to detect a registered vehicle so that an image showing the registered vehicle is displayed in a different manner from an image showing another vehicle different from the registered vehicle.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Kume with the teachings of Sugiura. Sugiura is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for displaying an image of a surrounding environment of a vehicle as captured by a camera mounted to the vehicle (pages 1-2). Sugiura discloses its detection of a registered vehicle is advantageous in informing and warning a driver of a host vehicle of the presence of the registered vehicle (pages 3-4). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Sugiura into Kume for informing and warning a driver of a host vehicle of the presence of the registered vehicle. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 4, depending on claim 1, Kume as modified by Sugiura discloses further comprising a contact unit configured to take a predetermined measure to contact an occupant of the registered vehicle, based on an operation on the image showing the registered vehicle that is displayed on the display unit that also serves as an operation unit (Kume discloses its display device for displaying its image showing its vehicles has a touch panel function to detect a touch operation on a display screen as an operation unit to perform an operation on its image showing its vehicles (par. 58 and 68); Sugiura similarly discloses a system and method for displaying an image of a surrounding environment of a vehicle as captured by a camera mounted to the vehicle (pages 1-2); Sugiura explains its system registers an object model in advance to detect a vehicle as a registered vehicle to distinguish the registered vehicle from other vehicles (pages 3-4); Sugiura further explains its system implements a notification unit as a contact unit to perform a notification process as a predetermined measure for contacting an occupant of the registered vehicle (pages 5 and 8-9); and it follows Kume may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Sugiura to implement a contact unit configured to contact an occupant of an registered vehicle based on an operation on its image showing its registered vehicle).
For claim 5, depending on claim 1, Kume as modified by Sugiura discloses further comprising a communication unit configured to send another-vehicle information indicating the other vehicle designated based on an operation on the display unit that also serves as an operation unit to the registered vehicle by a communication function to perform communication between the registered vehicle and the host vehicle (Kume discloses its display device for displaying its image showing its vehicles has a touch panel function to detect a touch operation on a display screen as an operation unit to perform an operation on its image showing its vehicles (par. 58 and 68); Sugiura similarly discloses a system and method for displaying an image of a surrounding environment of a vehicle as captured by a camera mounted to the vehicle (pages 1-2); Sugiura explains its system registers an object model in advance to detect a vehicle as a registered vehicle to distinguish the registered vehicle from other vehicles (pages 3-4); Sugiura further explains its system implements a communication unit to facilitate inter-vehicle communication of transmission of radio information between a host vehicle and the registered vehicle (pages 8-9); and it follows Kume may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Sugiura to implement a communication unit configured to send information indicating vehicles other than the registered vehicle based on an operation on its image showing its vehicles).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume in view of Sugiura further in view of Kubo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0053551 A1, hereinafter “Kubo”).
For claim 2, depending on claim 1, Kume as modified by Sugiura discloses a communication function to perform communication between the registered vehicle and the host vehicle (Sugiura similarly discloses a system and method for displaying an image of a surrounding environment of a vehicle as captured by a camera mounted to the vehicle (pages 1-2); Sugiura explains its system registers an object model in advance to detect a vehicle as a registered vehicle to distinguish the registered vehicle from other vehicles (pages 3-4); Sugiura further explains its system implements a communication unit to facilitate inter-vehicle communication of transmission of radio information between a host vehicle and the registered vehicle (pages 8-9); and it follows Kume may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Sugiura to implement a communication unit to perform a communication function between a registered vehicle and its host vehicle).
Kume as modified by Sugiura does not disclose when a vehicle becomes unable to be displayed based on surroundings information, erase the registered vehicle from display and display location information regarding a current location of the vehicle.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Kubo.
Kubo similarly discloses a system and method for displaying a simulatory image of a surrounding environment of a vehicle as captured by a camera mounted to the vehicle (Fig. 2; par. 11). Kubo explains a registered vehicle may be unable to be displayed as occluded by obstacles in the surrounding environment so that the registered vehicle is erased from the simulatory screen display (Fig. 2; par. 31 and 42). Kubo further explains a simulated picture image will be displayed as location information to indicate the registered vehicle is currently located behind the obstacle (Fig. 2; par. 31 and 42). It follows Kume and Sugiura may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Kubo to, when its image showing its registered vehicle becomes unable to be displayed on its display unit based on its surroundings information, erase its image showing its registered vehicle and display location information of a currently location of the registered vehicle acquired by its communication function to perform communication between its registered vehicle and its host vehicle.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Kume and Sugiura with the teachings of Kubo. Kubo is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for displaying a simulatory image of a surrounding environment of a vehicle as captured by a camera mounted to the vehicle (Fig. 2; par. 11). Kubo discloses its use of location information is advantageous in presenting a current location of a registered vehicle occluded form display to appropriately inform a driver of a host vehicle of the existence of the registered vehicle. Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Kubo into Kume and Sugiura for presenting a current location of a registered vehicle occluded form display to appropriately inform a driver of a host vehicle of the existence of the registered vehicle. Therefore, claim 2 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights