DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received 10 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are pending and have been considered as follows.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata (US Pub. No. 2017/0171375) in view of Imanishi (US Pub. No. 2022/0297727).
As per Claim 1, Kamata discloses a display control device (12, 103, 109, 52, 708, 720, 808) comprising processing circuitry (12, 103) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16, 21, 25, 47, 52-53, 58) configured to:
acquire (as per “The menu 50 is also interactive” in ¶48; as per “automation selection bar or menu 730” in ¶52) mode information (as per “The menu 50 is a graphical representation of all possible levels of vehicle automation” in ¶47; as per “By touching an illuminated level of automation other than the current level, a driver may select that level of automation” in ¶48; as per “enabling the occupant to select an available level of automation” in ¶52) including a driving assistance mode (as per 810, 820, 830) of a vehicle (as per 12) and information related to deceleration assistance (as per braking in 810, 820; as per 830) for decelerating the vehicle (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59);
display (via HMI 109, display 52, and screens 708, 720, 808) a driving mode image (as per “the current level of vehicle automation is illuminated in a specific color … All other available levels of automation are illuminated in a different color … Unavailable levels of vehicle automation are not illuminated” in ¶47) corresponding to the acquired mode information (as per “The menu 50 is a graphical representation of all possible levels of vehicle automation” in ¶47; as per “By touching an illuminated level of automation other than the current level, a driver may select that level of automation” in ¶48; as per “enabling the occupant to select an available level of automation” in ¶52) on a display device (109, 52, 708) (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59);
specify a display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) of a deceleration assistance image (as per illumination of elements 1-4 in menu bar 50 corresponding to braking in 810, 820; as per 830) to be displayed in relation to the deceleration assistance (as per braking in 810, 820; as per 830) in a corresponding manner to a display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) of the driving mode image (as per “the current level of vehicle automation is illuminated in a specific color … All other available levels of automation are illuminated in a different color … Unavailable levels of vehicle automation are not illuminated” in ¶47) (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59); and
display the deceleration assistance image (as per illumination of elements 1-4 in menu bar 50 corresponding to braking in 810, 820; as per 830) in the specified display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) on the display device (109, 52, 708) (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59).
Kamata does not expressly disclose the driving mode image including at least one of a host vehicle image and a traveling lane image.
Imanishi discloses a host vehicle (M) that includes: a human machine interface (30) having a display device (32); and an automated driving controller (100) having a first controller (120) that includes a mode determiner (150) (Figs. 1-2; ¶38, 44-47, 49, 58-60). The mode determiner (150) sets the driving mode executed by the host vehicle (M) to any one of a plurality of driving modes in which tasks imposed on the occupant are different on the basis of a situation of the host vehicle (M) (¶66). The driving modes include automated driving (Mode A), manual driving (Mode E), and modes involving driving assistance in which at least some occupant tasks are necessary (Modes B-D) (Fig. 3; ¶67-77). In operation, the display device (32) outputs an image (IM10) that features a surrounding situation display area (AR12) (Fig. 5; ¶102-103). The surrounding situation display area (AR12) includes: a first layer image (IM12) imitating the lane (L1) in which the host vehicle (M) is traveling; and a third layer image (IM14) imitating the host vehicle (M) superimposed on the first layer image (IM12) (Figs. 4-5; ¶90, 106). In this way, the display (32) facilitates the occupant’s understanding of the surrounding situation (¶103, 106-107). Like Kamata, Imanishi is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kamata and Imanishi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Imanishi to the system of Kamata since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating the occupant’s understanding of the surrounding situation. Applying the teachings of Imanishi to the system of Kamata would result in a system that operates with “the driving mode image including at least one of a host vehicle image and a traveling lane image” in that the HMI (109), display (52), and/or screens (708, 720, 808) of Kamata would be adapted to include image layers (IM12, 1M14) imitating lane (L1) and host vehicle (M) within the lane (L1) as per Imanishi.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Kamata and Imanishi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Kamata further discloses wherein the display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) of the deceleration assistance image (as per illumination of elements 1-4 in menu bar 50 corresponding to braking in 810, 820; as per 830) includes at least one of a color (as per “the current level of vehicle automation is illuminated in a specific color … All other available levels of automation are illuminated in a different color … Unavailable levels of vehicle automation are not illuminated” in ¶47) of the deceleration assistance image (as per illumination of elements 1-4 in menu bar 50 corresponding to braking in 810, 820; as per 830), {a thickness of a line in the deceleration assistance image}, or {a size of the deceleration assistance image}.
As per Claim 5, the combination of Kamata and Imanishi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Kamata further discloses wherein the deceleration assistance image (as per illumination of elements 1-4 in menu bar 50 corresponding to braking in 810, 820; as per 830) is an icon (as per elements 1-4) representing an event (as per “crash-imminent situations” in ¶38) where the deceleration assistance (as per “dynamic brake support in emergencies” in ¶38) is needed (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59).
As per Claim 6, Kamata discloses a display control method (as per operation of HMI 109, display 52, and screens 708, 720, 808) (Figs. 1-2, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16, 21, 25, 47, 52-53, 58) comprising:
displaying a driving mode image (as per “the current level of vehicle automation is illuminated in a specific color … All other available levels of automation are illuminated in a different color … Unavailable levels of vehicle automation are not illuminated” in ¶47) corresponding to a driving assistance mode (as per 810, 820, 830) of a vehicle (as per 12) on a display device (109, 52, 708) provided in the vehicle (as per 12) (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59);
adjusting a display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) of a deceleration assistance image (as per illumination of elements 1-4 in menu bar 50 corresponding to braking in 810, 820; as per 830) to a display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) corresponding to a display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) of the driving mode image (as per “the current level of vehicle automation is illuminated in a specific color … All other available levels of automation are illuminated in a different color … Unavailable levels of vehicle automation are not illuminated” in ¶47) when executing deceleration assistance (as per braking in 810, 820; as per 830) (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59); and
displaying the deceleration assistance image (as per illumination of elements 1-4 in menu bar 50 corresponding to braking in 810, 820; as per 830) in the adjusted display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) together with the driving mode image (as per “the current level of vehicle automation is illuminated in a specific color … All other available levels of automation are illuminated in a different color … Unavailable levels of vehicle automation are not illuminated” in ¶47) (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59).
Kamata does not expressly disclose wherein the driving mode image includes at least one of a host vehicle image and a traveling lane image.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Imanishi.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kamata and Imanishi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Imanishi to the system of Kamata since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating the occupant’s understanding of the surrounding situation. Applying the teachings of Imanishi to the system of Kamata would result in a system that operates “wherein the driving mode image includes at least one of a host vehicle image and a traveling lane image” in that the HMI (109), display (52), and/or screens (708, 720, 808) of Kamata would be adapted to include image layers (IM12, 1M14) imitating lane (L1) and host vehicle (M) within the lane (L1) as per Imanishi.
As per Claim 7, Kamata discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (115) storing a code (as per “instructions” in ¶24) that causes a processor (103) constituting a computer (14) (Fig. 1; ¶16, 24-25) to execute:
displaying a driving mode image (as per “the current level of vehicle automation is illuminated in a specific color … All other available levels of automation are illuminated in a different color … Unavailable levels of vehicle automation are not illuminated” in ¶47) corresponding to a driving assistance mode (as per 810, 820, 830) of a vehicle (as per 12) on a display device (109, 52, 708) provided in the vehicle (as per 12) (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59);
adjusting a display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) of a deceleration assistance image (as per illumination of elements 1-4 in menu bar 50 corresponding to braking in 810, 820; as per 830) to a display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) corresponding to a display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) of the driving mode image (as per “the current level of vehicle automation is illuminated in a specific color … All other available levels of automation are illuminated in a different color … Unavailable levels of vehicle automation are not illuminated” in ¶47) when executing deceleration assistance (as per braking in 810, 820; as per 830) (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59); and
displaying the deceleration assistance image (as per illumination of elements 1-4 in menu bar 50 corresponding to braking in 810, 820; as per 830) in the adjusted display format (as per illumination of menu bar 50) together with the driving mode image (as per “the current level of vehicle automation is illuminated in a specific color … All other available levels of automation are illuminated in a different color … Unavailable levels of vehicle automation are not illuminated” in ¶47) (Figs. 1, 4, 5A, 5B, 6; ¶16-17, 36-41, 47-48, 52-53, 58-59).
Kamata does not expressly disclose the driving mode image including at least one of a host vehicle image and a traveling lane image.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Imanishi.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kamata and Imanishi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Imanishi to the system of Kamata since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating the occupant’s understanding of the surrounding situation. Applying the teachings of Imanishi to the system of Kamata would result in a system that operates with “the driving mode image including at least one of a host vehicle image and a traveling lane image” in that the HMI (109), display (52), and/or screens (708, 720, 808) of Kamata would be adapted to include image layers (IM12, 1M14) imitating lane (L1) and host vehicle (M) within the lane (L1) as per Imanishi.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Kamata and Imanishi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Kamata does not expressly disclose wherein the event includes at least one of a curve, a signal lane, an approach to a preceding vehicle, a temporary stop, a tollgate, a roundabout, a yield, or a T-junction.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Imanishi. Imanishi further discloses wherein the surrounding situation display area (AR12) includes: a fifth layer image (IM16) imitating the other vehicle at a position associated with the third layer image (IM14) imitating the host vehicle (M) on the basis of a relative position between the host vehicle (M) and the other vehicle (Fig. 5; ¶106-107).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kamata and Imanishi, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Imanishi to the system of Kamata since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating the occupant’s understanding of the surrounding situation. Applying the teachings of Imanishi to the system of Kamata would result in a system that operates with “wherein the event includes at least one of {a curve, a signal lane}, an approach to a preceding vehicle, {a temporary stop, a tollgate, a roundabout, a yield, or a T-junction}” in that the HMI (109), display (52), and/or screens (708, 720, 808) of Kamata would be adapted to include image layers (IM12, 1M14, IM16) imitating lane (L1), host vehicle (M), and relative position between host vehicle (M) and the other vehicle within the lane (L1) as per Imanishi.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata (US Pub. No. 2017/0171375) in view of Imanishi (US Pub. No. 2022/0297727), further in view of Heo (US Pub. No. 2017/0327116).
As per Claim 3, the combination of Kamata and Imanishi teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Kamata further discloses wherein the driving assistance (810, 820, 830) includes a deceleration assistance mode (830) for solely performing deceleration assistance and an adaptive cruise control mode (820) for following a preceding vehicle at a constant interval (as per “maintain a safe following distance behind another vehicle” in ¶54) (Figs. 5B, 6; ¶38, 54-59, 65).
Kamata does not expressly disclose wherein the adaptive cruise control includes acceleration and deceleration assistance.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Imanishi.
Heo discloses an adaptive cruise control apparatus (16) within a subject vehicle (10) in which a controller (13) receives information from a sensor device (11) describing a forward vehicle (20) (Fig. 2; ¶48-49). The controller (13) controls a power train (17) of the subject vehicle (10) in accordance with a target acceleration using the acquired information (Fig. 2; ¶51). In operation, the apparatus (16) controls at least one of an engine, motor, transmission, and brake of the subject vehicle (10) in order to follow the forward vehicle (20) with a proper distance (¶42). Like Kamata, Heo is concerned with vehicle control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Kamata, Imanishi, and Heo one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Imanishi and Heo to the system of Kamata since doing so would enhance the system by: facilitating the occupant’s understanding of the surrounding situation; and adapting the system for performing adapting cruise control in accordance with specified vehicle systems as a matter of design choice as per Heo. Applying the teachings of Imanishi and Heo to the system of Kamata would result in a system that operates “wherein the adaptive cruise control includes acceleration and deceleration assistance” in that the system of Kamata would be adapted to perform adaptive cruise control using specified combinations of the engine, motor, transmission, and brakes as per Heo.
As per Claim 4, the combination of Kamata, Imanishi, and Heo teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 3. does not expressly disclose wherein the driving assistance mode further includes a congestion following mode including acceleration and deceleration assistance for following the preceding vehicle at a constant interval when congestion has occurred.
See rejection of Claim 1 for discussion of teachings of Imanishi.
See rejection of Claim 3 for discussion of teachings of Heo. Heo further discloses an embodiment in which the controller (13) limits (as per S12) acceleration of the subject vehicle (10) in response to a determination (YES as per S11) that a congested traffic condition exists (Fig. 3; ¶55-57). In this way, the system maintains a constant distance between the subject vehicle (10) and the forward vehicle (20) without ride discomfort due to rapid acceleration and deceleration (¶4-5, 7-8, 46).
Therefore, from these teachings of Kamata, Imanishi, and Heo one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Imanishi and Heo to the system of Kamata since doing so would enhance the system by: facilitating the occupant’s understanding of the surrounding situation; and adapting the system for performing adapting cruise control in accordance with specified vehicle systems as a matter of design choice as per Heo. Applying the teachings of Imanishi and Heo to the system of Kamata would result in a system that operates “wherein the driving assistance mode further includes a congestion following mode including acceleration and deceleration assistance for following the preceding vehicle at a constant interval when congestion has occurred” in that the system of Kamata would be adapted to perform adaptive cruise control appropriate to detected congestion as per Heo.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) should not be maintained in view of the amendments (page 6 of Amendment). This argument is persuasive. Therefore, claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is not maintained.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Kamata and Heo, either individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest [features as per the amended claim language] recited in amended independent claims 1, 6, and 7” (page 7 of Amendment). Upon further consideration of the teachings of Kamata, rejections under 35 USC 102 are not maintained. Further, no rejection involves an assertion that the teachings of Kamata and Helo individually or in combination teach or suggest limitations as per the amended claim language. In addition, the amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nishizaki (US Pub. No. 2016/0167514), Masamura (US Pub. No. 2018/0181267), Miyahara (US Pub. No. 2020/0231181), Arai (US Pub. No. 2021/0070293), and Kamiya (US Pub. No. 2022/0130296) disclose vehicle display systems and/or vehicle control systems.
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 STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights