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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 2, and 4 are amended. Claims 5-17 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo et al [CN 118072540 A] (reference made to US equivalent application US 2024/0174168; “Suh”).
As for claim 1, Suh discloses a display control device comprising a display control unit configured to:
cause a display unit provided around a driver's seat of a host vehicle to display a host vehicle image simulating the host vehicle (Figure 4A),
determine a recommended action of the host vehicle based on information on an emergency vehicle approaching the host vehicle and based on a road condition around the host vehicle (paragraph 0008); and
cause the display unit to display an instruction image indicative of the recommended action, wherein:
the instruction image includes a recommended route for the host vehicle to travel along (Figure 4A & 4B and paragraph 0008; Suh shows here that the instruction image includes an avoidance route. The avoidance route reads on the claimed recommended route.).
Claims 2-3 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
As for claim 4¸ Suh discloses that the display control unit is configured to display the instruction image showing a recommended stop area for the host vehicle (avoidance location) and the recommended route (avoidance route) for the host vehicle leads into the recommended stop area (Figure 3; paragraphs 0038-0047).
As for claim 8, the display control unit is further configured to determine an emergency vehicle type; and the recommended action of the host vehicle is further based on the emergency vehicle type (Figures 4A & 4B).
As for claim 11¸ Suh discloses a display control device, comprising a display control unit configured to:
cause a display unit provided around a driver's seat of a host vehicle to display a host
vehicle image simulating the host vehicle (Figure 4A);
determine whether an emergency vehicle is approaching the host vehicle (paragraph 0008);
determine an approach angle of the emergency vehicle relative to the host vehicle (Figure 4A);
determine a recommended action of the host vehicle (Figure 4A) based on 1) a determination that the
emergency vehicle is approaching the host vehicle, 2) a determination that the approach angle of
the emergency vehicle is in a direction of the host vehicle, and 3) a road condition around the
host vehicle; and cause the display unit to display an instruction image indicative of the recommended action (Figures 4A & 4B; paragraphs 0045-0048, and 0054).
Claim 12 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 11 above.
Claims 13 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 12 above. The Figures show the approach of the emergency vehicles.
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.
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 5-7, 9, 10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al [CN 118072540 A] (reference made to US equivalent application US 2024/0174168; “Suh”), as applied to the claims above.
As for claim 5, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 4 above. Suh’s avoidance location reads on both a stop area and retreat area. Suh does not specifically disclose the instruction image includes the claimed recommended retreat area. However, since Suh includes an avoidance location and a display for displaying information to help a driver avoid the route of an emergency vehicle, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Suh to display various types of graphics for indicating avoidance information. The selection of the type of information and the aesthetics is viewed as a matter of engineering preference that would have left to one possessing ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 6-7 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 5 above.
As for claim 9, Suh does not disclose that when the emergency vehicle is a two-wheeled emergency vehicle, the recommended action is for the host vehicle to continue traveling in a traveling lane of the host vehicle. However, Figures 4A and 4B show that different actions can be recommended for different types of emergency vehicles. Having these teachings on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to try recommending various actions based on the type of emergency vehicle that is determined. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for avoiding emergency vehicles that were within his/her technical grasps at the time of filing the instant application.
Claim 10 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1 and 8-9 above.
Claims 14-15 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims, 9 and 12-13 above. The skilled artisan would have had good reason to pursue the known options for avoiding emergency vehicles that were within his/her technical grasps at the time of filing the instant application.
Claim 16 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claims 1-4 above.
Claim 17 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 11 above. The skilled artisan would have recognized that the control display would provide a desirable visual image. The selection of or exclusion of text is viewed as a matter of engineering preference that would be left to the artisan.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses emergency vehicle avoidance systems that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights