DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is drafted in response to amendments/remarks dated 07/08/2026. Claims 1, 3, and 6 are pending. Claims 2, and 4-5 are cancelled and claim 6 is new. Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected as cited below. This action is made FINAL.
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 Specification Objections
Examiner withdraws the title objection in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Claim Interpretation
Examiner withdraws invocation of the 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner withdraws all 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3 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.
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 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quast et al.
(US Pub. 2014/0107888 A1; hereafter Quast), in view of WATANABE et al. (US Pub. 2020/0084395 A1; hereafter Watanabe), in further view of Schneider et al. (US Pub. 2019/0004163 A1; hereafter Schneider).
Quast was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Quast teaches:
A display control device (vehicle surround view system 3) comprising
a processor (processor 30), and
a memory (database 36) storing instructions that are executable by the processor and that cause the processor to:
acquire detection information detectable by a vehicle (At least ¶ [0015] “It is also possible to provide dedicated sensors in order to obtain the status information on the operational state of the vehicle.”);
cause, based on the detection information, a monitor (optical output device 31) to display a surrounding image and a vehicle image (At least ¶ [0046] “in step 307 the vehicle surround view is displayed or the display is refreshed in order to display the newly calculated image data.” Additionally, see FIG. 2, which shows both a surrounding image (background 4), and a vehicle image (vehicle model 2).);
change a mode of the vehicle image according to the detection information that has been acquired (At least ¶ [0045] “For example, if a window pane is slightly open, depending on the virtual camera position, the window may be displayed differently in the vehicle model.” and ¶ [0047] “In step 308, it is checked whether status information of certain vehicle components has changed. This means, for example, that the status information of a vehicle component has changed by a certain amount which makes it necessary to re-determine the display control information and therefore to update the vehicle model of the vehicle surround view.”), the surrounding image being an image showing surroundings of the vehicle as viewed from a virtual point of view (At least ¶ [0039] “The background 4 is obtained from image sensors which are positioned around the vehicle. Typically, because the vehicle is moving, the background 4 is moving with respect to the vehicle. Therefore, the background 4 constitutes a dynamic surrounding of the vehicle model 2.”), the vehicle image being an image showing the vehicle as viewed from the virtual point of view (At least ¶ [0044] “Once the virtual camera position and the display control information are determined and established in the step 303 and the step 304, a graphical representation of a vehicle model is calculated. In particular, the display control information is related to the graphical representation which, in turn, depends on the virtual camera position.”).
Quast does not teach:
add damage information to the vehicle image in a case where specific dangerous driving performed by an occupant of the vehicle is identified from the detection information, the damage information indicating a possibility of damage to the vehicle, the specific dangerous driving being at least one of sudden acceleration, sudden braking, and sudden steering.
However, Watanabe, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
add damage information (partial image PG) to the vehicle image (G5) in a case where specific dangerous driving performed by an occupant of the vehicle is identified from the detection information (At least ¶ [0044] “The acquisition unit 401 acquires a current steering angle of the vehicle 1.”), the damage information indicating a possibility of damage to the vehicle, the specific dangerous driving being at least one of sudden acceleration, sudden braking, and sudden steering (At least ¶ [0088] “as illustrated in FIG. 10, at time t1, when an object O (a stationary object) that may come in contact with the vehicle 1 is detected by the detection unit 402, the control unit 403 highlights the partial image PG in the virtual vehicle image G5 coming in contact with the detected object O, in red.” A sudden change in steering (i.e. dangerous driving) in this case would possibly cause damage to the front of the vehicle, as illustrated by the highlighted region PG.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Quast with Watanabe. This modification would have been obvious as both Quast and Watanabe contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle surroundings monitoring) and Quast ¶ [0004] notes that “… it has been observed that a combination of the dynamic displaying of the vehicle surrounding with a static vehicle model causes disturbance to the user.” Introducing the Watanabe dynamic potential collision zone (partial image PG) to Quast may help further alleviate user disturbance caused by a static vehicle model. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that dynamically updating the potential collision zone relative to the steering angle would feel more intuitive for a driver than a static depiction of the same zone. This may allow the user to more easily avoid obstacles, while increasing the usability of the system.
The combination of Quast and Watanabe does not teach:
identify, based on the detection information, a cause of a decrease in detection accuracy of a sensor mounted on the vehicle, the cause of the decrease in the detection accuracy of the sensor being identified in a case where the detection information indicates that at least one of mud, water droplets, snow, and ice is present on the sensor; and
add, to a portion of the vehicle image corresponding to the sensor whose detection accuracy has decreased, a mark representing the identified cause of the decrease in the detection accuracy.
However, Schneider, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
identify, based on the detection information (At least ¶ [0033] “temperature-time characteristic of sensor interior 15, which has been measured by temperature sensor 80”), a cause of a decrease in detection accuracy (At least ¶ [0002] “An ice or snow coating of the diaphragm of the electroacoustic sensor may thus lead to a reduced sensitivity of the sensor or, in the worst case, to its failure.”) of a sensor (electroacoustic sensor 1) mounted on the vehicle, the cause of the decrease in the detection accuracy of the sensor being identified in a case where the detection information indicates that at least one of mud, water droplets, snow, and ice is present on the sensor (At least ¶ [0033] “If a second time range 170 featuring a considerably lower gradient than in the reference curve is detected in ascertained temperature characteristic 150, then this makes it possible to identify a diaphragm 20 of electroacoustic sensor 1 that is covered with snow or ice 40.”); and
add, to a portion of the vehicle image corresponding to the sensor whose detection accuracy has decreased, a mark representing the identified cause of the decrease in the detection accuracy (At least ¶ 0038] “Warning 210 to the driver, as illustrated in this FIG. 2, is able to be carried out by displaying a symbol on a display 225. This directly illustrates to the driver in the immediate visual field on instrument panel 220 the presence of an ice-covered sensor. At the same time, the position of affected sensor 215 may be shown by the representation on a display.” FIG. 2 shows three exclamation marks which have been added to the rear of the vehicle image. These three exclamation marks represent that ice is the cause of the decrease in detection accuracy.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Quast and Watanabe with Schneider. This modification would have been obvious as both the Quast/Watanabe combination and Schneider contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle surroundings monitoring) and Quast ¶ [0005] notes that “There is a need for a more realistic driver perspective view of the vehicle model within a vehicle surround.” Introducing the Schneider sensor monitoring to Quast may help increase the realism of the driver perspective view. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that monitoring for, and displaying, sensor faults on a vehicle model would increase the amount of information available to a driver, thus providing a more realistic perspective view of the vehicle. This may help the driver determine faults with the vehicle and take appropriate action to fix the identified sensors. This may also lead to increased safety for the driver and those proximate to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Quast, Watanabe, and Schneider teaches The display control device according to claim 1. Watanabe further teaches:
wherein
the memory stores forms of the damage information respectively corresponding to types of dangerous driving (At least ¶ [0083] “In the embodiment, when an object that may come in contact with the vehicle 1 is detected by the detection unit 402, the control unit 403 makes the display mode of the partial image in the virtual vehicle image coming in contact with the detected object, different from the display mode of other portions of the virtual vehicle image.” and [0089] “… the control unit 403 determines the color of pixels included in the polygons constituting the partial image PG by a fragment shader based on the RGB values of each vertex of the polygons constituting the partial image PG.” Partial image PG is analogous to the damage information. The partial image PG shape and color is determined by the CPU 14a, which reads data from the memory modules (14f, 14b, and/or 14c). Therefore, the memory stores all of the forms of damage information, which are read as a program. See ¶ [0041] “The CPU 14a reads a program stored in a non-volatile storage device such as the ROM 14b, and executes various arithmetic processings according to the program.”); and
the processor is configured to
identify, from the detection information, a type of dangerous driving among the types of dangerous driving as the specific dangerous driving (At least ¶ [0075] “the control unit 403 displays the partial image PG in red, and displays portions other than the partial image PG in the virtual vehicle image G5, in white. Accordingly, when driving the vehicle 1 at a current steering angle, the driver of the vehicle 1 may grasp the position in the vehicle body 2 of the vehicle 1 that may come in contact with the detected object O, …” and ¶ [0076] “Accordingly, it is possible to grasp the positional relationship between the vehicle 1 and the object O in more detail by checking a change in the display mode of the partial image PG. Thus, it is possible to more easily drive the vehicle 1 while preventing the vehicle 1 from coming in contact with the detected object O.” The steering angle is identified as the type of dangerous driving as the continuation of the current extreme steering angle will cause a collision with object O.), and
add, to the vehicle image, the damage information in the form corresponding to the identified type of dangerous driving (At least ¶ [0088] “as illustrated in FIG. 10, at time t1, when an object O (a stationary object) that may come in contact with the vehicle 1 is detected by the detection unit 402, the control unit 403 highlights the partial image PG in the virtual vehicle image G5 coming in contact with the detected object O, in red.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quast, in view of Watanabe, in view of Schneider, in further view of HAN et al. (US Pub. 2018/0093619 A1; hereafter Han).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Quast, Watanabe, and Schneider teaches The display control device according to claim 1.
The combination of Quast, Watanabe, and Schneider does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to reflect an open or closed state of a door mirror of the vehicle in a portion of the vehicle image, the open or closed state being identified from the detection information, and the portion of the vehicle image being a portion corresponding to the door mirror.
However, Han, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to reflect an open or closed state of a door mirror of the vehicle in a portion of the vehicle image (At least ¶ [0250] “Referring to FIG. 15, when the side view mirror is folded, the vehicle display apparatus 100 may generate and display a vehicle image 700i in which the side view mirror is folded and overlappingly display a highlight image 10 in which the side view mirror portion is emphasized.”), the open or closed state being identified from the detection information (At least ¶ [0229] “the processor 170 may acquire information about changes of the vehicle moving parts such as a state change in which the side view mirror is folded or unfolded …”), and the portion of the vehicle image being a portion corresponding to the door mirror.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Quast, Watanabe, and Schneider with Han. This modification would have been obvious as both the Quast/Watanabe/Schneider combination and Han contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle surroundings monitoring) and Quast ¶ [0005] notes that “There is a need for a more realistic driver perspective view of the vehicle model within a vehicle surround.” Introducing the Han mirror monitoring system would help increase the realism of the Quast vehicle model. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that depicting the positional status of the side view mirrors on a vehicle would lead to a more accurate, and realistic vehicle model. This may also increase the safety for a driver of the Quast system by depicting when the side view mirrors are in the folded position. Mirrors in a folded position may not serve their intended function for a driver of the vehicle. Therefore, if a driver is alerted to the mirrors being in a folded position, the mirrors can be unfolded before the vehicle begins operation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights