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 Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/069,986 filed on 03/04/2025.
• Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to Remarks and Amendments filed on 08/04/2026.
• The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Kai Wang.
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 Application No. 19/069,986 filed on 03/04/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2025, 03/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: control unit in claims 1-2, 4-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of
determine whether or not a lane change operation that is an operation of changing a lane in which the host vehicle travels from a host lane to an adjacent lane is being performed by the host vehicle based on an output of the camera;
The remarks stated that the support for this claim feature can be found in paragraphs [0015]- [0020], however, none of those paragraphs in the specification demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claim 1 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, claim 1 is directed towards a machine.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, claim 1 recites the limitation of determining whether or not a lane change operation that is an operation of changing a lane in which the host vehicle travels from a host lane to an adjacent lane is being performed by the host vehicle based on an output of the camera. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “display electronic control unit”. That is, other than reciting “display electronic control unit” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “display electronic control unit” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at the collected camera output video and forming a simple judgement if the host vehicle travels from a host lane to an adjacent lane is being performed. The mere nominal recitation of by a display electronic control unit does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 recites a mental process.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim 1 recites additional elements of receiving a plurality of sensor data from a plurality of sensors located on the vehicle, displaying a host vehicle icon indicating the host vehicle, the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator displayed in front of the host vehicle icon, and a lane marking of a traveling lane, changing relative display positions of the host vehicle icon and the lane marking in response to lane change of the host vehicle, and displaying the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator until the lane change is completed. The receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying steps in response to the lane change operation is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post-solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “display electronic control unit”, “display device” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The display control system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the displaying steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle. The specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle display controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the display step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding some of the other examples of additional limitations in the dependent claims such as “not to display the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator” (claim 2), “display a change-unavailable indicator indicating that the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance is not changeable” (claim 5), the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant post-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) and display device to perform the process. In particular, display a distance indicator is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of display an icon based on previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1 and the explanations provided above.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 6 is eligible because it recites “a vehicle control electronic control unit configured to execute the vehicle-to- vehicle distance control, based on the output of the camera and an output of the radar sensor, by controlling the vehicle speed of the host vehicle so that the vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is maintained at the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance”, wherein the limitation of “controlling the vehicle speed of the host vehicle so that the vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is maintained at the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance” is not an abstract idea of mental process.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarten (US20200361472A1) in view of Hashimoto (US20190143982A1), further in view of Choi (US 20260253412 A1) and HyundaiUSA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Jr1_CMo7Y, August 26, 2022).
Regarding claim 1:
Baumgarten teaches:
A host vehicle that is configured to execute vehicle-to- vehicle distance control in which a vehicle speed of the host vehicle is controlled such that a vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and a preceding vehicle is maintained at a set vehicle-to-vehicle distance, the host vehicle comprising: (Baumgarten, Fig. 3 depicts a set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator (distance lines 9) indicating a set vehicle-to-vehicle distance and is capable of executing vehicle-to-vehicle distance control by outputting warning if the distance is less than the threshold value, therefore the driver could control the vehicle speed to prevent getting too close to the preceding vehicle, and para [46], “distance lines 9 which are part of a distance warning system are displayed in front of the ego transportation vehicle. If the sensed road user which is represented by the graphic object F2 is closer to the transportation vehicle 1 than a predetermined distance, a distance warning is output.” )
PNG
media_image1.png
667
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a camera mounted on the host vehicle and configured to capture images of an area in front of the host vehicle in a front-rear direction of the host vehicle;( Baumgarten, para [37], “The first camera 2.1 is oriented forward with respect to the direction of travel FR”)
a radar sensor configured to detect objects in front of the host vehicle using radio waves;( Baumgarten, para [37], “radar sensors, infrared sensors and/or ultrasonic sensors, can be used for sensing the surroundings of the transportation vehicle.”)
an in-vehicle display located within the host vehicle; (Baumgarten, para [38], “The device 6 also comprises a display unit 4 with a display area 4′. The display unit 4 can be arranged here in the center console of the transportation vehicle 1”)
and a display control electronic control unit configured to: (Baumgarten, para [39], “The display unit 4 is connected to a control device 5”)
and display, on the in-vehicle display, (i) a host vehicle icon indicating the host vehicle, (ii) the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator displayed in front of the host vehicle icon, and (iii) a lane marking of a traveling lane, (Baumgarten, Fig. 6 displays a host vehicle icon indicating the host vehicle, the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator displayed in front of the host vehicle icon, and a lane marking of a traveling lane)
Baumgarten does not explicitly teach, but Hashimoto teaches:
when the operation determination unit determines that the lane change operation is being performed. (Hashimoto, para [121], “When the lane change control is completed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to determine whether or not a lane change operation that is an operation of changing a lane in which the host vehicle travels from a host lane to an adjacent lane is being performed from Hashimoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
Baumgarten does not explicitly teach, but Choi teaches:
determine whether or not a lane change operation that is an operation of changing a lane in which the host vehicle travels from a host lane to an adjacent lane is being performed by the host vehicle based on an output of the camera; (Choi, para [302], “determine whether lane line object, detected based on the image from the camera 195, include two lane borders (S1010), and if so, the processor 175 may be configured to determine whether a width between two lane lines is outside an allowable range (S1015), and if so, the processor 175 may be configured to determine whether there is previous lane line information (S1017), and if so, the processor 175 may be configured to determine whether there is continuity with the previous lane line information (S1020), and if so, the processor 175 may be configured to determine whether a vehicle is changing lanes (S1025)”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to determine whether or not a lane change operation that is an operation of changing a lane in which the host vehicle travels from a host lane to an adjacent lane is being performed by the host vehicle based on an output of the camera; from Hashimoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
Baumgarten does not explicitly teach, but HyundaiUSA teaches:
the display control electronic control unit being further configured to change relative display positions of the host vehicle icon and the lane marking in response to lane change of the host vehicle, (HyundaiUSA posted a video clip of highway lane change assist feature and shows that change relative display positions of the host vehicle icon and the lane marking in response to lane change of the host vehicle as depicted in screenshots below.)
PNG
media_image2.png
398
1186
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the display control electronic control unit is configured to not display the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator until the lane change is completed when the. (HyundaiUSA posted a video clip of highway lane change assist feature and the screen does not display the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator (the green line in front of vehicle) when the lane change is being performed as depicted below.) Examiner note: HyundaiUSA disclose a vehicle screen is configured to not display the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator ( green line) until the lane change is completed when the display control electronic control unit determines that the lane change operation is being performed. The video shows a highlighted lane mark ( green color) when the host vehicle is crossing left side of lane mark at time =1:34 (m:ss).
PNG
media_image3.png
342
1324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to include the display controller being configured to change relative display positions of the host vehicle icon and the lane marking in response to lane change of the host vehicle wherein the display controller is configured not to display the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator until the lane change is completed from HyundaiUSA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
Regarding claim 2:
Baumgarten in view of Hashimoto, Choi and HyundaiUSA, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumgarten does not explicitly teach, but HyundaiUSA teaches:
teaches:
The host vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the display control electronic control unit is configured to not display the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator until the lane change is completed, (HyundaiUSA posted a video clip of highway lane change assist feature and the screen does not to display the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator (the green line in front of vehicle) when the lane change is being performed as depicted below.)
PNG
media_image3.png
342
1324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
even when the vehicle-to-vehicle distance control is being executed when the display control electronic control unit determines that the lane change operation is being performed. (HyundaiUSA shows in the video clip that the Highway Driving Assist (HDA) is operating when the lance change operating is being performed. Highway Driving Assist (HDA) maintains a set distance and speed from the vehicle ahead according to Hyundai owner manual.(See https://ownersmanual.hyundai.com/docview/webhelp/Hyundai/1adff4af-ff10-4fb6-93d8-0223b776dcd6/idabe587a0dac.html).
PNG
media_image4.png
536
485
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Time=0:48 (m:ss)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to include wherein the display controller is configured not to display the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator until the lane change is completed, even if the vehicle-to-vehicle distance control is being executed when the operation determination unit determines that the lane change operation is being performed from HyundaiUSA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
Regarding claim 3:
Baumgarten in view of Hashimoto, Choi and HyundaiUSA, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumgarten does not explicitly teach, but HyundaiUSA teaches:
teaches:
The in-vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein the lane change operation includes at least one of the host vehicle crossing an actual lane marking on a road on which the host vehicle is travelling, a turn signal lever of the host vehicle being operated by a driver of the host vehicle, and a start of execution of lane change control of automatically performing the lane change. (HyundaiUSA shows in the video clip that moving the turn signal lever up will initiate the lance change operation.)
PNG
media_image5.png
435
773
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Time=1:22 (m:ss)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to include wherein the lane change operation includes at least one of an operation of the host vehicle crossing the lane marking, an operation of a turn signal lever of the host vehicle, and a start of execution of lane change control of automatically performing the lane change from HyundaiUSA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
Regarding claim 6:
Baumgarten in view of Hashimoto, Choi and HyundaiUSA, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumgarten teaches:
The host vehicle according to claim 1, further comprising: a vehicle control electronic control unit configured to execute the vehicle-to- vehicle distance control, based on the output of the camera and an output of the radar sensor, by controlling the vehicle speed of the host vehicle so that the vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is maintained at the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance. (Baumgarten, Fig. 3 depicts a set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator (distance lines 9) indicating a set vehicle-to-vehicle distance and is capable of executing vehicle-to-vehicle distance control by outputting warning if the distance is less than the threshold value, therefore the driver could control the vehicle speed to prevent getting too close to the preceding vehicle, and para [46], “distance lines 9 which are part of a distance warning system are displayed in front of the ego transportation vehicle. If the sensed road user which is represented by the graphic object F2 is closer to the transportation vehicle 1 than a predetermined distance, a distance warning is output.”, para [37], “The first camera 2.1 is oriented forward with respect to the direction of travel FR”, para [37], “radar sensors, infrared sensors and/or ultrasonic sensors, can be used for sensing the surroundings of the transportation vehicle.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
667
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to include a vehicle control electronic control unit configured to execute the vehicle-to- vehicle distance control, based on the output of the camera and an output of the radar sensor, by controlling the vehicle speed of the host vehicle so that the vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is maintained at the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarten (US20200361472A1) in view of Hashimoto (US20190143982A1), further in view of Choi (US 20260253412 A1) and HyundaiUSA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Jr1_CMo7Y, August 26, 2022) and Kuze (US 20110196591 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Baumgarten in view of Hashimoto, Choi and HyundaiUSA, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumgarten does not explicitly teach, but Hashimoto teaches:
when the display control electronic control unit determines that the lane change operation is being performed, (Hashimoto, para [121], “When the lane change control is completed”)
until the lane change is completed. (Hashimoto, para [121], “When the lane change control is completed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to include when the operation determination unit determines that the lane change operation is being performed from Hashimoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
Baumgarten does not explicitly teach, but Kuze teaches:
The host vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the display control electronic control unit configured to, prohibit change of the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance (Kuze, para [10], “ to prohibit changing of the target following distance”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to include a change prohibition unit configured to prohibit change of the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance from Kuze. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgarten (US20200361472A1) in view of Hashimoto (US20190143982A1), further in view of Choi (US 20260253412 A1) and HyundaiUSA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Jr1_CMo7Y, August 26, 2022) and Hyundai Owner Manual, 2021.
Regarding claim 5:
Baumgarten in view of Hashimoto, Choi and HyundaiUSA, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Baumgarten does not explicitly teach, but Hashimoto teaches:
The host vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the display control electronic control unit is configured to, when the control electronic control unit determines that the lane change operation is being performed, (Hashimoto, para [121], “The lane change control device 100 determines whether or not the lane change control is completed”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to include wherein the display controller is configured to, when the operation determination unit determines that the lane change operation is being performed from Hashimoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
Baumgarten does not explicitly teach, but Hyundai Owner Manual teaches:
display a change-unavailable indicator indicating that the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance is not changeable.(Hyundai [page 6-121] teaches using Smart Cruise Control feature to set vehicle-to-vehicle distance during the adaptive cruise control operation, however, a warning message will appear on the cluster LCD display to disable this feature when the sensor lens cover is blocked with dirt, snow, or debris, therefore, it is not possible to change the vehicle-to-vehicle distance under those conditions.)
PNG
media_image6.png
468
614
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify vehicle display device from Baumgarten in order to include wherein the display controller is configured to, when the operation determination unit determines that the lane change operation is being performed from Hyundai Owner Manual. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the occupant’s sense of discomfort during lance change.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant argues that independent claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites the limitation of determining whether or not a lane change operation that is an operation of changing a lane in which the host vehicle travels from a host lane to an adjacent lane is being performed by the host vehicle based on an output of the camera. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “display electronic control unit”. That is, other than reciting “display electronic control unit” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “display electronic control unit” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at the collected camera output video and forming a simple judgement if the host vehicle travels from a host lane to an adjacent lane is being performed. The mere nominal recitation of by a display electronic control unit does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim 1 recites a mental process. The claim 1 recites additional elements of receiving a plurality of sensor data from a plurality of sensors located on the vehicle, displaying a host vehicle icon indicating the host vehicle, the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator displayed in front of the host vehicle icon, and a lane marking of a traveling lane, changing relative display positions of the host vehicle icon and the lane marking in response to lane change of the host vehicle, and displaying the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator until the lane change is completed. The receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying steps in response to the lane change operation is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to mere post-solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “display electronic control unit”, “display device” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The display control system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. Dependent claim(s) 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding some of the other examples of additional limitations in the dependent claims such as “not to display the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance indicator” (claim 2), “display a change-unavailable indicator indicating that the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance is not changeable” (claim 5), the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant post-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) and display device to perform the process. In particular, display a distance indicator is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of display an icon based on previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1 and the explanations provided above. Dependent claim 6 is eligible because it recites “a vehicle control electronic control unit configured to execute the vehicle-to- vehicle distance control, based on the output of the camera and an output of the radar sensor, by controlling the vehicle speed of the host vehicle so that the vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is maintained at the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance”, wherein the limitation of “controlling the vehicle speed of the host vehicle so that the vehicle-to-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is maintained at the set vehicle-to-vehicle distance” is not an abstract idea of mental process.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5 (See applicant’s response, page 6, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) 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.
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 extension fee 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 KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
