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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the specification have overcome the objection due to minor informality. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the section titled “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102, 103” starting on page 7 of the reply filed 06/04/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the rejections below.
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 1-3, 6-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirp (DE 102016014167 A1), in view of Sakai (US 2020/0307617 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schirp discloses a vehicle display control device, comprising:
a processor (In the last paragraph beginning on page 1 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses a control device including a computer unit) that is configured to:
cause display of a lane image simulating a travel lane in which a host vehicle travels, and an icon indicating an incentive that can be acquired by the host vehicle passing through the travel lane, at a display region provided at a periphery of a driver's seat of the host vehicle (In the last paragraph beginning on page 1 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses a control device including at least one camera for detecting the vehicle exterior, a computer unit, a communication unit for connection to a data network, computer unit actuators for controlling the motor vehicle, and a computer unit head-up display for displaying information or symbols in the field or on the windshield of the motor vehicle; in the eighth paragraph beginning on page 3 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses that the computer unit 2 obtains through the communication unit 6 from the data network connections a determined course of the route and from the driver assistance camera 4 determined environment information of the motor vehicle 1, where the most energy-efficient course as a virtual coin track is superimposed on the real traffic events, representing that the driver must collect the virtual coins by "driving over" them to obtain game points, where achieved game points can, if necessary, be converted into incentives such as monetary benefits such as fuel or to compete in social media).
Although in the tenth paragraph beginning on page 3 of the provided translation Schirp discloses that the environment data obtained from cameras and sensors of the driver assistance system are incorporated into the calculation of the illustrated course in such a way that the course can be traveled without risk for other road users, Schirp does not explicitly disclose detecting an obstacle in the travel lane; and
causing display of the icon at a position on the lane image corresponding to a path that avoids the detected obstacle.
However, Sakai teaches detecting an obstacle in the travel lane (In paragraphs [0028-0030], Sakai teaches that the arithmetic processing device 2 identifies one or a plurality of obstacles B present around the vehicle 100, particularly, present close to a traveling direction, by image recognition that uses shot images obtained by the front camera 1, and where the arithmetic processing device 2 may be able to improve recognition accuracy by further using information provided from the sensor group 6 such as sonar and radar); and
causing display of the icon at a position on the lane image corresponding to a path that avoids the detected obstacle (In paragraph [0056], Sakai teaches that the display device 5 superimposes an alert image ME and a recommended driving image M on a real view S, where obstacles B are present in portions enclosed by dashed lines; in paragraph [0060], Sakai teaches that the vehicle driving assistance system 10 further displays a recommended route image MK and a recommended speed image MV which are superimposed on the real view S, in addition to the alert image ME).
Sakai is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to detecting and avoiding obstacles, and a superimposed display of the corresponding information. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Sakai with the device as disclosed by Schirp where doing so is advantageous in that the safety of navigation of the vehicle can be improved, for example, by providing information on potential obstacles.
Regarding claim 2, Schirp further discloses wherein:
the processor is further configured to acquire a path of the travel lane which enables the host vehicle to pass through safely, and to cause display of the icon at a position on the lane image that corresponds to the acquired path of the travel lane (In the last paragraph beginning on page 1 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses a computer unit head-up display for displaying information or symbols in the field or on the windshield of the motor vehicle; in the eighth paragraph beginning on page 3 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses that the computer unit 2 obtains through the communication unit 6 from the data network connections a determined course of the route and from the driver assistance camera 4 determined environment information of the motor vehicle 1, where the most energy-efficient course as a virtual coin track is superimposed on the real traffic events, representing that the driver must collect the virtual coins by "driving over" them to obtain game points, where achieved game points can, if necessary, be converted into incentives such as monetary benefits such as fuel or to compete in social media).
Regarding claim 3, Schirp further discloses wherein:
the processor is further configured to cause display of the icon in a case in which the acquired path of the travel lane is in a straight-ahead direction (In the last paragraph beginning on page 1 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses a computer unit head-up display for displaying information or symbols in the field or on the windshield of the motor vehicle; in the eighth paragraph beginning on page 3 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses that the computer unit 2 obtains through the communication unit 6 from the data network connections a determined course of the route and from the driver assistance camera 4 determined environment information of the motor vehicle 1, where the most energy-efficient course as a virtual coin track is superimposed on the real traffic events, representing that the driver must collect the virtual coins by "driving over" them to obtain game points, where achieved game points can, if necessary, be converted into incentives such as monetary benefits such as fuel or to compete in social media; the Examiner understands that the icon is displayed in a case where the acquired path is in a ”straight-ahead direction” under its broadest reasonable interpretation in that the path is disclosed as being the most energy efficient, and will be displayed in all cases including when the path is at least in a “straight-ahead direction” for a portion or entirety of the path; see also fig. 2 below where the virtual coin track is depicted in a “straight-ahead direction” for at least a portion of the depicted path).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Schirp (DE 102016014167 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Sakai further teaches wherein:
the obstacle comprises another vehicle protruding into the travel lane (In paragraph [0029], Sakai teaches that the obstacles B include moving objects such as bicycles and parked and stopped vehicles; in paragraph [0037], Sakai teaches that when, if the vehicle 100 travels the general traveling route (first recommended route K1) on the road, the traveling route is likely to overlap a region with the influence E set for the first obstacle B1, a route (second recommended route K2) that avoids the region in which the influence E is set is set as a recommended route K; see fig. 5 below), and
the processor is further configured to cause display of the icon on the path that avoids the other vehicle (In paragraph [0056], Sakai teaches that the display device 5 superimposes an alert image ME and a recommended driving image M on a real view S, where obstacles B are present in portions enclosed by dashed lines; in paragraph [0060], Sakai teaches that the vehicle driving assistance system 10 further displays a recommended route image MK and a recommended speed image MV which are superimposed on the real view S, in addition to the alert image ME).
PNG
media_image2.png
401
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Sakai (US 2020/0307617 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Schirp further discloses wherein:
the processor is further configured to cause display of a plurality of the icons along the path that avoids the detected obstacle (In the last paragraph beginning on page 1 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses a control device including at least one camera for detecting the vehicle exterior, a computer unit, a communication unit for connection to a data network, computer unit actuators for controlling the motor vehicle, and a computer unit head-up display for displaying information or symbols in the field or on the windshield of the motor vehicle; in the eighth paragraph beginning on page 3 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses that the computer unit 2 obtains through the communication unit 6 from the data network connections a determined course of the route and from the driver assistance camera 4 determined environment information of the motor vehicle 1, where the most energy-efficient course as a virtual coin track is superimposed on the real traffic events, representing that the driver must collect the virtual coins by "driving over" them to obtain game points, where achieved game points can, if necessary, be converted into incentives such as monetary benefits such as fuel or to compete in social media).
Regarding claim 13, Schirp further discloses wherein:
the display region comprises a head-up display or a meter display provided at the periphery of the driver's seat (In the last paragraph beginning on page 1 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses a control device including at least one camera for detecting the vehicle exterior, a computer unit, a communication unit for connection to a data network, computer unit actuators for controlling the motor vehicle, and a computer unit head-up display for displaying information or symbols in the field or on the windshield of the motor vehicle).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirp (DE 102016014167 A1) and Sakai (US 2020/0307617 A1), in view of Purgatorio (US 10,885,539 B1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schirp and Sakai does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the processor is further configured to change, and cause display of, the icon based on a speed of the host vehicle and a speed limit of the travel lane.
However, Purgatorio teaches wherein:
the processor is further configured to change, and cause display of, the icon based on a speed of the host vehicle and a speed limit of the travel lane (In column 3 lines 45-56, Purgatorio teaches obtaining telematics data of a driver's operation of a vehicle and awards safe driving currency (e.g., driving points) that the driver may then use to purchase a benefit (e.g., an object in a video game, a coffee at a coffee shop, etc.); from column 12 line 53 to column 14 line 43, Purgatorio teaches that a driver score in generated to award the driver safe driving currency, where the computing device may send, to the driver's client-side computing devices 100b for display to the driver, a notification that the driver is not being awarded safe driving currency because the driver performed too many high-risk or unsafe driving events, where the driver score may be adjusted if a driver consistently drives within posted speed limits, for example an excessive speeding event may be a high-risk or unsafe driving event in which the vehicle's speed or velocity is greater than a maximum speed threshold (e.g., speed limit of road being traversed by the vehicle), and if the driver speeds excessively, the notification may include a recommendation to follow the posted speed limit to have a better chance in obtaining safe driving currency).
Purgatorio is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to displaying information to a driver regarding incentives affected by a speed of the vehicle and a speed limit. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Purgatorio with the device as disclosed by the combination of Schirp and Sakai, where doing so “incentive[s] drivers through the use of intangible and tangible user-selected benefits acquired as a result of improving their driving skills and driving more safely to thereby reduce (or prevent) accidents and their associated costs” as suggested by Purgatorio in column 1 lines 35-40. Implementing considerations for vehicle speed and speed limit may advantageously improve driver safety, for example, by further increasing the amount of considered variables that may cause dangerous vehicle behaviors.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirp (DE 102016014167 A1) and Sakai (US 2020/0307617 A1), in view of Hayward (US 9,841,287 B1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schirp and Sakai does not explicitly disclose wherein:
in a case in which there is a stop position, in the travel lane, at which stopping of the host vehicle is required, the processor is further configured to change, and cause display of, the icon based on a period of time during which the host vehicle is stopped at the stop position.
However, Hayward teaches wherein:
in a case in which there is a stop position, in the travel lane, at which stopping of the host vehicle is required, the processor is further configured to change, and cause display of, the icon based on a period of time during which the host vehicle is stopped at the stop position (From column 34 line 59 to column 35 line 16, Hayward teaches that an insurance provider may promote or reward the use of one or more aspects described herein with lower insurance premiums, rates, and/or increased discounts; from column 42 line 50 to column 43 line 33, Hayward teaches that a message to automatically stop at the railroad crossing may be a message to automatically stop at the railroad crossing during a predetermined time period to allow train 210 to pass unimpeded to facilitate avoidance of train-vehicle collisions, and at least one of displaying, adjusting, or generating an insurance discount for vehicles (e.g., autonomous vehicles) having risk mitigation or prevention functionality such as that described herein, including adjusting an insurance premium or discount by receiving telematics data from an insured mobile device, which telematics data may include an indication of a level of usage of the alert, recommendation, and/or other functionality discussed herein).
Hayward is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to displaying information to a driver regarding incentives correlating to a stop of the vehicle for some predetermined time period. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Hayward with the device as disclosed by the combination of Schirp and Sakai, where implementing considerations for vehicle stop may advantageously improve driver safety, for example, by further increasing the amount of considered variables that may cause dangerous vehicle behaviors, such as further preventing collision with or otherwise impeded travel of a train by the vehicle in the example of Hayward.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirp (DE 102016014167 A1) and Sakai (US 2020/0307617 A1), in view of Endo (US 2022/0063406 A1).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Schirp and Sakai does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the plurality of icons are displayed ahead of an image of the host vehicle on the lane image.
However, Endo teaches wherein:
the plurality of icons are displayed ahead of an image of the host vehicle on the lane image (In paragraph [0054], Endo teaches that a head-up display (hereafter referred to as HUD) 56 and a meter display (hereafter referred to as MET) 58 are connected to the display control ECU 42; in paragraphs [0059-0060], Endo teaches that the host vehicle is displayed as an icon 64 in the third person perspective multi-lane image and that respective markers 66 are displayed at positions corresponding to future positions of the host vehicle in both the first person perspective single lane image and the third person perspective multi-lane image, and as the host vehicle travels the array of markers 66 advances (moves downward in the respective displays) toward a reference position corresponding to the host vehicle; see fig. 5B below).
PNG
media_image3.png
356
601
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 5B of Endo (US 2022/0063406 A1)
Endo is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to display of icons and an image of the host vehicle in a third-dimensional context. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Endo with the device as disclosed by the combination of Schirp and Sakai, where doing so improves the understanding of operation of the vehicle, for example, by providing additional information to further contextualize navigation of the vehicle in its surrounding environment to the driver.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schirp and Sakai does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the processor is further configured to change a display position of the icon in accordance with movement of the host vehicle such that the icon moves toward an image of the host vehicle as the host vehicle approaches a location corresponding to the icon.
However, Endo teaches wherein:
the processor is further configured to change a display position of the icon in accordance with movement of the host vehicle such that the icon moves toward an image of the host vehicle as the host vehicle approaches a location corresponding to the icon (In paragraph [0054], Endo teaches that a head-up display (hereafter referred to as HUD) 56 and a meter display (hereafter referred to as MET) 58 are connected to the display control ECU 42; in paragraphs [0059-0060], Endo teaches that the host vehicle is displayed as an icon 64 in the third person perspective multi-lane image and that respective markers 66 are displayed at positions corresponding to future positions of the host vehicle in both the first person perspective single lane image and the third person perspective multi-lane image, and as the host vehicle travels the array of markers 66 advances (moves downward in the respective displays) toward a reference position corresponding to the host vehicle).
Endo is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to display of moving icons towards a corresponding host vehicle in a third-dimensional context. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Endo with the device as disclosed by the combination of Schirp and Sakai, where doing so improves the understanding of operation of the vehicle, for example, by providing additional information to further contextualize movement of the vehicle along its route to the driver.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirp (DE 102016014167 A1), Sakai (US 2020/0307617 A1), and Endo (US 2022/0063406 A1), in view of Musabji (US 2012/0059720 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schirp, Sakai, and Endo does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the processor is further configured to enlarge the icon as the host vehicle approaches the location corresponding to the icon.
However, Musabji teaches wherein:
the processor is further configured to enlarge the icon as the host vehicle approaches the location corresponding to the icon (In paragraphs [0103-0104], Musabji teaches that the dots closest may appear larger than the dots further away, and as the distance 1304 from the dot 1302 increases, the size of the dots may decrease proportionally).
Musabji is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to proportionately sizing icons displayed along a route. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Musabji with the device as disclosed by the combination of Schirp, Sakai, and Endo where doing may advantageously improve the understanding of operation of the vehicle, for example, by providing additional information to further contextualize distance of the vehicle to the points along the route.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirp (DE 102016014167 A1) and Sakai (US 2020/0307617 A1), in view of Nintendo (Nintendo 3DS - Mario Kart 7 Trailer; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N36jPMZWyAA).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schirp and Sakai does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the processor is further configured to hide the icon when a position corresponding to the icon overlaps a position corresponding to the host vehicle.
However, Nintendo teaches wherein:
the processor is further configured to hide the icon when a position corresponding to the icon overlaps a position corresponding to the host vehicle (At 1:04, Nintendo portrays a virtual coin being collected after colliding with the controlled vehicle, where the coin visually disappears after being collected).
PNG
media_image4.png
750
1330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
746
1328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Screenshots of two adjacent frames at 1:04 of “Nintendo 3DS - Mario Kart 7 Trailer” posted by Nintendo of America on Nov 21, 2011 depicting a virtual coin disappearing after being collected
Nintendo is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to visually hiding a collectable virtual object after a vehicle is controlled to overlap with the virtual object to collect it. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Nintendo with the device as disclosed by the combination of Schirp and Sakai, where doing so may advantageously improve understanding by the driver that the incentive has been collected, for example, by hiding the collectable to demonstrate to the driver that it is no longer collectable, and further preventing the driver from erroneously attempting to recollect the same incentive multiple times.
Regarding claim 12, Schirp further discloses wherein:
the processor is further configured to provide the incentive when the position corresponding to the icon overlaps the position corresponding to the host vehicle (In the eighth paragraph beginning on page 3 of the provided translation, Schirp discloses that the computer unit 2 obtains through the communication unit 6 from the data network connections a determined course of the route and from the driver assistance camera 4 determined environment information of the motor vehicle 1, where the most energy-efficient course as a virtual coin track is superimposed on the real traffic events, representing that the driver must collect the virtual coins by "driving over" them to obtain game points, where achieved game points can, if necessary, be converted into incentives such as monetary benefits such as fuel or to compete in social media).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirp (DE 102016014167 A1) and Sakai (US 2020/0307617 A1), in view of Asakura (US 2018/0194364 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Schirp and Sakai does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the processor is further configured to cause display of the icon only when a driving mode of the host vehicle is a manual driving mode.
However, Asakura teaches wherein:
the processor is further configured to cause display of the icon only when a driving mode of the host vehicle is a manual driving mode (In paragraph [0039], Asakura teaches that a navigation screen NI generated on the basis of the path information 134 is displayed, where the navigation screen NI may be displayed only in the manual driving mode).
Asakura is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to only displaying guidance information to a driver when the vehicle is in a manual driving mode. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Asakura with the device as disclosed by the combination of Schirp and Sakai, where doing so may advantageously improve efficiency of operation of the device, for example, by preventing the use of the display from utilizing system resources when the driver does not have control of the vehicle and does not require guidance information.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schirp (DE 102016014167 A1) and Sakai (US 2020/0307617 A1), in view of Matsui (US 2022/0072959 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Schirp and Sakai does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the processor is further configured to hide the icon when a steering operation of a driver exceeds a predetermined amount.
However, Matsui teaches wherein:
the processor is further configured to hide the icon when a steering operation of a driver exceeds a predetermined amount (In paragraph [0073], Matsui teaches that since the absolute value of the yaw angle variation amount becomes equal to or more than the threshold a while the vehicle 200 turns the curve CR1, the display determination result becomes display OFF, and the virtual image Iv is not displayed).
Matsui is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to hiding guidance information when the vehicle turning is greater than some threshold. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Matsui with the device as disclosed by the combination of Schirp and Sakai, where doing so may advantageously improve safety of navigation by the vehicle, for example, by preventing overwhelming stimulus to the driver that may distract during a sensitive maneuver such as a large turn where the vehicle may begin moving in a direction not in the direct straightforward point of view of the driver.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banno (US 2019/0359228 A1) teaches a vehicle display control device.
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 Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights