DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the pending application.
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, 3-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuji et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0009796) and Matsunaga et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0107511).
In reference to claim 1, Fuji et al. discloses a display control device for controlling a plurality of display devices that: are installed in a vehicle (see paragraphs 1, 19-20, and Figures 3-4 wherein Fuji et al. discloses a display control system for controlling a plurality of display devices which are physically separated from each other and operating within an automobile environment.); and
display a plurality of drawings to superimpose the plurality of drawings on a plurality of display targets showing surroundings of the vehicle (see paragraphs 21, 23-24, 26-28, 34 and Figures 2-4 wherein Fuji et al. discloses the display control system controlling a plurality of display devices of which are specified as a heads-up display (HUD), a display of a car navigation system, an electronic rear-view mirror display and an electronic side-view mirror display. Fuji et al. discloses the system drawing virtual images and display icons overlaid upon display frames/image planes, of which are at least inherently included with each display device screen’s output of images. As can be seen from at least the drawings of Fuji et al. the display devices show the “surroundings of the vehicle” while navigation and display icons show guidance of the vehicle in such “surroundings.”):
wherein viewpoints of the plurality of display devices are different from one another (see paragraphs 21, 23-24, 26-28, 34 and Figures 2-4 wherein Fuji et al. discloses the display control system controlling a plurality of display devices of which are specified as a heads-up display (HUD), a display of a car navigation system, an electronic rear-view mirror display and an electronic side-view mirror display. Note, since Fuji et al. discloses the display devices in the form of different displays showing different “angles” of the surroundings around the vehicle, the Examiner interprets such different display devices to at least inherently show “different viewpoints” as can be further supported by the display of a car navigation display device (#21(1) of Figure 3 = top down view) vs.(#26(2) of Figure 3 = 3D driver perspective point of view.).), the display control device comprising:
a controller that generates the plurality of drawings to coordinate, among the plurality of display devices, relative positions of the vehicle and the plurality of drawings on the plurality of display targets, so as to match one another (see paragraphs 23-24, 34, 37, 72, 74-77 and Figures 3, 4, 6, 8 wherein Fuji et al. discloses the display control system comprising a display controller that includes multiple “ECU’s” one for an associated drawing region (R1, R2, R3). Fuji et al. explicitly discloses the surrounding vehicle information includes information captured of various elements surrounding an area of the vehicle and that the display control system controls to display various images as driver-assist information. Note, it is clear that the abovementioned virtual images, display icons and car navigation screen display of Fuji et al. at least inherently “generating(es)…drawings to coordinate relative positions of the vehicle…”); and
an outputter that outputs the plurality of drawings generated by the controller to the plurality of display devices (see paragraphs 37-39 and Figures 3, 6 and 8 wherein Fuji et al. explicitly discloses each of the ECU’s to comprise a GPU of which is explicitly states as causing a particularly associated display device to display a certain screen image thereupon.) such that the plurality of drawings are displayed in the different viewpoints correspond to one another.
Although Fuji et al. does disclose the display control system utilizing multiple display devices each displaying images from different viewpoints, Fuji et al. does not explicitly disclose that such images are displayed so as to “match one another” and are displayed in differing viewpoints that correspond to one another. Matsunaga et al. discloses a parking assist apparatus configured to be capable of performing a parking control to let a vehicle move from a parking start position to a target parking space and set the vehicle in a parking state (see paragraph 1). Matsunaga et al. discloses the apparatus comprising a touch panel display that outputs thereon two images of the same parking aid situation (e.g. “matched”) but in two different perspectives or viewpoints (e.g. one from a birds-eye view and one from for example, a parallel angle viewpoint) (see at least paragraphs 87 and 217-219 and Figures 1 & 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the vehicle displaying multiple matching images from different viewpoints technique of Matsunaga et al. with the multiple vehicle display device displaying techniques of Fuji et al. in order to provide the user with an operator of a vehicle with the most amount of information in the most amount of line-of-site viewpoints for ultimately providing ease of use and safety improvements of said vehicle operation.
In reference to claim 3, Fuji et al. and Matsunaga et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Fuji et al. discloses the display control system comprising a display controller that includes multiple “ECU’s” one for an associated drawing region (R1, R2, R3) that is allocated to a specific display device (see paragraphs 37, 72, 74-77 and Figures 6, 8). Fuji et al. explicitly discloses an ECU acquiring drawing commands, determining drawing coordinates from the drawing commands and determining whether such drawings commands are included in an associated drawing region that corresponds with that ECU/GPU (see paragraphs 73-74). Fuji et al. further explicitly discloses forwarding the drawing commands to another ECU if it is determined such commands are not included in its associated drawing region (see paragraphs 75-76).
In reference to claim 4, Fuji et al. and Matsunaga et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Fuji et al. discloses the display control system comprising a display controller that includes multiple “ECU’s” one for an associated drawing region (R1, R2, R3) that is allocated to a specific display device (see paragraphs 37, 72, 74-77 and Figures 6, 8). Fuji et al. explicitly discloses in one embodiment, an ECU acting as an active processor acquires drawing commands, determining drawing coordinates from the drawing commands and determining whether such drawings commands are included in an associated drawing region that corresponds with that ECU/GPU (see paragraphs 73-74). Fuji et al. further explicitly discloses forwarding the drawing commands to another ECU if it is determined such commands are not included in its associated drawing region (see paragraphs 75-76).
In reference to claim 5, Fuji et al. and Matsunaga et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Since Fuji et al. explicitly discloses displaying the virtual images and display icons on the display devices in particular sizes, orientations, fonts etc. (see at least Figures 1-3), the Examiner interprets that the techniques of Fuji et al. at least inherently “coordinates…at least one of a color, a size, or an angle of the plurality of drawings…”
In reference to claim 6, Fuji et al. and Matsunaga et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Fuji et al. discloses the display control system controlling a plurality of display devices of which are specified as a heads-up display (HUD), a display of a car navigation system, an electronic rear-view mirror display and an electronic side-view mirror display (see paragraphs 21, 23-24, 26-28, 34 and Figures 2-4). Fuji et al. discloses the system drawing virtual images and display icons overlaid upon display frames/image planes (see at least paragraphs 22, 26-28 Figures 2-4).
In reference to claim 7, Fuji et al. and Matsunaga et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 6 above. Fuji et al. discloses the display control system controlling a plurality of display devices of which are specified as a heads-up display (HUD), a display of a car navigation system, an electronic rear-view mirror display and an electronic side-view mirror display (see paragraphs 21, 23-24, 26-28, 34 and Figures 2-4).
In reference to claim 10, claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. Claim 10 recites a method of the invention of which the Examiner deems has at least inherently, been described by the teachings of Fuji et al. and Matsunaga et al. with reference to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8 are 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.
Response to Arguments
The cancellation of claim 9 is noted.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 08/28/2026, with respect to the objection of the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the title has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-15 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 08/28/2026 and the Remarks presented in the Interview of 08/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 10 under 35 USC 102 and Fuji et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fuji et al. and Matsunaga et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0107511).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
10/1/26
Prosecution Insights