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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mimura (US 20200079379 A1), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Mimura discloses:
a display system comprising: a vehicle detection device for detecting surrounding vehicles present in surroundings of a host vehicle {paragraphs [0061] and [0062] disclose a recognizer, construed as the vehicle detector, which detects surrounding vehicles. Fig. 1 discloses the camera 10, radar 12 and object recognizing device 16};
a display device for displaying the surrounding vehicles detected by the vehicle detection device as vehicle icons {Fig. 2 shows the display device 32 in the vehicle. {[0007] discloses a displaying images resembling the other vehicles, construed as the vehicle icons, recognized. Fig. 20 and [0125] disclose that the host vehicle M and surrounding vehicles m1, m2, m3, m5 are displayed}; and
a processor configured to control display content of the display device {[0007] discloses a display controller. [0097] discloses that the HMI controller 174 generates the image},
wherein when a lane change of the host vehicle is being executed, the processor is configured to display a vehicle icon of a surrounding vehicle positioned in front of the host vehicle in a lane after the lane change and closest to the host vehicle in a display mode different from vehicle icons of remaining surrounding vehicles {[0084]: FIGS. 4 to 6 are diagrams (1 to 3) illustrating situations in which the subject vehicle M is caused to perform a lane change. [0095]: it is determined that lane change can be performed, the target trajectory generator 144 outputs information representing the generated target trajectory to the second controller 160 and the third controller 170. [0111]: The examples illustrated in FIGS. 13 and 14 illustrate a state in which the subject vehicle M has completed a lane change from a lane L1 to a lane L2. In this case, the HMI controller 174 generates an image IM4 including an image of a road shape in which a lane L2, in which the subject vehicle M is running, is at the center. The HMI controller 174 displays another vehicle m3 that is a following vehicle with more emphasis than the other vehicles m1, m2, m4, and m5}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 8, 9.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Mimura discloses: wherein the processor is configured to display a vehicle icon of a first proceeding vehicle positioned in front of the host vehicle in a driving lane of the host vehicle and closest to the host vehicle in a display mode different from vehicle icons of remaining surrounding vehicles {Fig. 8}, and display the vehicle icon of the surrounding vehicle positioned in front of the host vehicle in the lane after the lane change and closest to the host vehicle, instead of the first proceeding vehicle, in the display mode different from the vehicle icons of the remaining surrounding vehicles when the lane change of the host vehicle is being executed {[0084], [0095], [0111]}.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Mimura discloses: wherein as vehicle icons showing surrounding vehicles, a vehicle icon for a passenger car and a vehicle icon for a truck are used {Fig. 8 illustrates passenger icons. [0098]: a shape of another vehicle is recognized as being a shape of a bus, a large truck, or the like by the object recognizing device 16, an image of the other vehicle corresponding to the shape is displayed}.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Muraki (JP2017181125A), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Mimura does not teach: wherein the display mode is transparency, luminance, hue, color brightness or color saturation.
Muraki teaches use of different hue in vehicle display in paragraph [0051] of English translation: the degree of emphasis can be represented by the amount of color change from the basic color. The amount of change in color is at least one of hue, saturation, and lightness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different hue display feature of Muraki with the described invention of Mimura in order to facilitate displaying differently.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Li et al. (US 20170330463 A1).
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, Mimura does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to display the vehicle icons of the remaining surrounding vehicles in a default display mode.
Li teaches a default display mode in [0148]: the icons 20, 21 indicating the target vehicles are displayed with a default color.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the default display mode feature of Li with the described invention of Mimura in order to facilitate displaying similar surrounding vehicles in the same way.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4, Li teaches: wherein the default display mode is set to a same color as a background color of the display device {[0148]: This default color may be the same color as a background color}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the default display color feature of Li with the described invention of Mimura in order to facilitate displaying similar surrounding vehicles in the same way.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, Li teaches: wherein the background color of the display device is gray {[0148]. Examiner notes that a specific color for the background color is a matter of design choice. For example, grey is a color that is less notable than other colors such as red or black}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the default display color feature of Li as grey and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Mimura in order to facilitate displaying similar surrounding vehicles in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kabe (US 20180157038 A1) teaches displaying a vehicle icon differently in relation to lane change.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights