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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: "T2" in fig. 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 2020/0219398 A1) in view of Kondo (US 20200189467 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a vehicle display control device, comprising:
a memory (paragraph [0021]); and
a processor coupled with the memory (paragraph [0021]), the processor being configured to:
acquire a peripheral situation of a host vehicle via a sensor (abstract, paragraphs [0006], [0018]); and
at a time of displaying an image showing the peripheral situation of the host vehicle at a display (Fig. 3A-C, 4, paragraphs [0020], [0029]) provided at a periphery of a driver's seat of the host vehicle (fig. 2 #16A, paragraph [0029]). Shimizu describes a system which obtains information of the
surroundings of a vehicle to generate a virtual image that can aid in performing an automatic lane change.
Shimizu fails to teach in a case in which an attribute of an object positioned at a periphery of the host vehicle is unclear, display the object in a manner expressing that the attribute has not been confirmed, up until the attribute is confirmed.
However, Kondo teaches in a case in which an attribute of an object positioned at a periphery of the host vehicle is unclear, display the object in a manner expressing that the attribute has not been confirmed, up until the attribute is confirmed (paragraph [0017]). Kondo describes making an obstruction semi-transparent while waiting for its object detection to be confirmed. Kondo is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing of a vehicle’s periphery. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine Kondo with Shimizu in order to improve safety of the driver as it avoids erroneously displaying an object.
Method claim 8 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the method claim 8 corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
CRM claim 9 is drawn to the CRM corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the CRM claim 9 corresponds to the apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Kondo and in further view of Won (US 20230373516 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu in view of Kondo teaches The vehicle display control device of claim 1. Kondo further teaches wherein: the processor is configured to change a displayed form of the specific image (paragraph [0054] – changes based on movement, or risk level) in accordance with a probability expressing a likelihood of an attribute of the object (paragraph [0021], [0054] – accuracy of whether or not object overlaps with another and object risk level).
Shimizu in view of Kondo fails to teach the manner is a specific image showing a predetermined shape however, Won teaches the manner is a specific image showing a predetermined shape (paragraphs [0010], [0018], [0019]). Won describes an autonomous driving system which presents predetermined shapes according to a result of the object recognition. Won is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of image processing and driver assistance systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Won with Shimizu in view of Kondo and implement the system which utilizes predetermined shapes as the manner of displaying vehicle’s surroundings in order to improve driver safety as it relates to anxiety and fatigue of a user (paragraph [0110]).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu in view of Kondo and Won teach the vehicle display control device of claim 2, Kondo further teaches wherein: the attribute is a plurality of types of attributes (paragraphs [0030], [0031], [0048]), and the processor is configured to, in a case in which any probability, among respective probabilities of the plurality of types of attributes, becomes greater than or equal to a threshold value (paragraphs [0072], [0076], [0066], [0067]), display, instead of the specific image, an image showing the attribute having a probability that has become greater than or equal to the threshold value (figs 8 & 10 paragraph [0053], [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu in view of Kondo and Won teach The vehicle display control device of claim 2, wherein: the attribute is a plurality of types of attributes (Won, paragraph [0050], [0051], [0060]), and the processor is configured to display the specific image so as to overlap with (Kondo, paragraph [0053]) an image showing an attribute that has a highest probability among respective probabilities of the plurality of types of attributes (Won [0063], [0070]), and, in a case in which the attribute is confirmed, delete the specific image (Won, [0108]).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu in view of Kondo teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1. Kondo further teaches wherein: the processor is configured to vary a size of the specific image in accordance with a size of the object (paragraph [0045] – “the image size when the detected object is included in the captured image 71 is also uniquely determined based on the information indicating the size of the detected object and the position information”).
Shimizu in view of Kondo fails to teach the manner is a specific image showing a predetermined shape however, Won teaches the manner is a specific image showing a predetermined shape (paragraphs [0010], [0018], [0019])
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu in view of Kondo teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1, wherein: a plurality of specific images, at which at least one of a size and transparency is different, are stored in the memory in advance (Kondo, paragraph [0053]), and up until an attribute of the object is confirmed, the processor is configured to selectively display any of the plurality of specific images that are stored in the memory (Kondo, paragraphs [0017], [0087]).
Shimizu in view of Kondo fails to teach the manner is a specific image showing a predetermined shape however, Won teaches the manner is a specific image showing a predetermined shape (paragraphs [0010], [0018], [0019])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Kondo and Won and in further view of Lee.
Regarding claim 5, The vehicle display control device of claim 2, wherein: the attribute is a plurality of types of attributes, and the processor is configured to display the specific image so as to overlap with an image showing an attribute that has a highest probability among respective probabilities of the plurality of types of attributes (Kondo, paragraphs [0017], [0053], [0057]),
Shimizu in view of Kondo and Won fail to teach as the probability of the attribute increases, increase transparency of the specific image.
However, Lee teaches as the probability of the attribute increases, increase transparency of the specific image (paragraphs [7]-[15]). Lee describes adjusting the transparency of a head mounted display device according to a control command which is based on a predetermined condition. Lee is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it is in the same field of display overlay and artificial/augmented reality systems. While Lee does not specify this predetermined condition as being the probability of an attribute increasing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the transparency adjustment present in Lee, with the accuracy factor of Kondo to improve visibility of the driving environment (Lee improves clearness of the external image and this external image is analogous to the real world portion/vehicle surroundings).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hamabe (US 11,975,735), Han (US 2018/0093619 A1), Yamafuji (US 12,399,027 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan W McCoy whose telephone number is (571)272-5935. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571)272-7773. 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.
/AIDAN W MCCOY/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights