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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuji et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0009796).
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, the display control device comprising (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.”):
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 (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.).
In reference to claim 3, Fuji et al. discloses 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. discloses 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. discloses 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. discloses 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. discloses 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 9, Fuji et al. discloses 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). 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).)
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. 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.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Matsunaga et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0107511)
Matsunaga et al. discloses a parking assist apparatus including an ECU that displays a first left support image on a predetermined display area of a touch panel display section that that an entire area of a tentative target parking space is displayed within the predetermined display area.
Tayama et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0058879)
Tayama et al. discloses an in vehicle image display system comprising a front windshield display screen and a second display device.
Han (U.S. Publication 2017/0132480)
Han discloses an apparatus configured to provide a view around a vehicle using multiple images.
Conclusion
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
6/18/26
Prosecution Insights