DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 11, 2025 is considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 1-5, and “display unit” in claims 1 and 4.
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.
Structure for the display unit can be found in Paragraph 27 of the Applicant’s Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-5 are 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.
10. Regarding claim 1, which claims 2-5 depend on, the claim recites “a control unit that causes a display unit to display an animation” on lines 1-2. Figure 1 and Specification Paragraph 62 disclose that the control unit is within the CPU. However, the examiner could not identify definite structure in the specification for the control unit itself. Thus, the “control unit” lacks structural support in the specification.
Claims 2-5 also recite a “control unit” and are rejected by dependency and for the same reasons as above.
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
12. Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
13. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 lines 2-4 disclose “a background image around a vehicle image that indicates a vehicle as seen from a virtual viewpoint moves in a predetermined direction at a moving speed …”. It is unclear if the vehicle is the one seen from a viewpoint image, if the background image is seen from a virtual viewpoint, or if both is seen from a virtual viewpoint. Furthermore, it is unclear if the background image is moving in a predetermined direction or if the vehicle image is moving in a predetermined direction. The Examiner will examine this as the vehicle seen from a virtual viewpoint and the background image moving in a predetermined direction.
14. Regarding claim 4, claim 1 discloses that the display unit displays an animation with a background image around a vehicle image. However, claim 4 discloses that a landscape image is displayed on the display unit instead. It is unclear if the background image and landscape image are the same image or if the landscape image is combined with the background image during the animation. Or is the landscape image displayed at a different time in the animation or after the animation claimed in claim 1? Thus, claim 4 is unclear.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are also rejected by dependency on claim 1.
15. Claim limitation “a control unit (claims 1-5)” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure lacks sufficient disclosure of a corresponding structure or material for the "control unit". The specification does not clearly mention or associate any structure for the control unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isu et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2008242251 A), hereinafter referred to as Isu, in view of Techzamazing (“Real Car Driving Simulator Gameplay Walkthrough (Android, iOS) – Part 1” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdXiNXVhu4c).
19. Regarding claim 1, Isu teaches an information processing device comprising a control unit (Paragraph 29 teaches the device can have a CPU which teaches a control unit under broadest reasonable interpretation) that causes a display unit to display an animation (Paragraph 28 teaches a display unit 106 that displays a synthesized video) in which a background image (Paragraph 36 teaches "a background image that moves in the forward and backward direction is generated according to the current forward and backward acceleration of the vehicle". This teaches the background image moves in a predetermined direction; Paragraph 38 teaches "the composite image displayed at this time shows the background image 302 … around the foreground image 301". This teaches the background image is around a foreground image which could be a vehicle image) at a moving speed matching a vehicle speed of the vehicle based on detection information that is detectable by the vehicle (Paragraph 13 teaches there is a behavior detection unit that can detects the behavior and acceleration of the vehicle. This teaches the vehicle speed of the vehicle is based on detection information detectable by the vehicle; Paragraph 53 teaches checking if a vehicle's speed is below a threshold. This teaches the vehicle speed is detectable by vehicle; Paragraph 39 teaches "the velocity U of the background image is proportional to the longitudinal acceleration α of this vehicle can also be represented as shown in Figure 10." The acceleration teaches an increase in vehicle speed. This teaches the moving speed of the background image matches a vehicle speed of the vehicle under broadest reasonable interpretation; Paragraph 53 teaches the background image speed can also match when the vehicle speed is below a threshold and will make the background image freeze),
and that gradually reduces, as the vehicle speed increases, a rate of variation in the moving speed that increases along with an increase in the vehicle speed (Paragraph 39 teaches U is the movement speed of the background image and α is the acceleration of the vehicle. The acceleration of the vehicle teaches an increase in the vehicle speed. Paragraph 39 also teaches "in Figure 10, the absolute value of U saturates where the absolute value of α is large… This indicates that even in the event of sudden acceleration or braking, the background image's movement speed remains constant" The movement speed of the background image saturating as the vehicle speed accelerates teaches gradually decreasing the movement speed of the background along with an increase in the vehicle speed)
However, Isu fails to teach a background image around a vehicle image that indicates a vehicle as seen from a virtual viewpoint.
Techzamazing teaches a background image around a vehicle image that indicates a vehicle as seen from a virtual viewpoint (Timestamps 1:02-1:06 teach a background image and landscape around a vehicle image from behind the image. The displayed image of the vehicle from behind as the vehicle moves teaches a vehicle image indicating a vehicle from a virtual viewpoint with a background around it).
Isu and Techzamazing are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying an animation or video while a vehicle is moving. Isu teaches a background image around a foreground image. Techzamazing teaches a background image around a vehicle image in the foreground. A person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have recognized that the foreground in Isu could be substituted with the vehicle image in Techzamazing because both the foreground image and vehicle image serve the purpose of being surrounded by a moving background image to simulate motion. Furthermore, a person holding ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution to achieve the predictable result of having a vehicle image surrounded by a background image to display motion using Techzamazing. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the foreground image taught by Isu with the vehicle image taught by Techzamazing in order to simulate the vehicle’s driving motion on a display.
20. Regarding claim 2, Isu in view of Techzamazing teaches the limitations of claim 1. Isu further teaches wherein the control unit stops the variation in the moving speed when the vehicle speed has increased to a predetermined value or more (Paragraph 39 teaches "the absolute value of U saturates where the absolute value of α is large" and that "in the event of sudden acceleration or braking, the background image's movement speed remains constant". The sudden acceleration teaches the vehicle speed is detected to be increased to a predetermined value or more. Keeping the background image movement speed constant teaches stopping the variation in the moving speed of the background image when the vehicle speed increased to a predetermined value or more).
21. Regarding claim 4, Isu in view of Techzamazing teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Isu is not relied upon for the below claim language: wherein the control unit varies a display size of a landscape image regardless of variation in the vehicle speed when displaying the landscape image on the display unit, the display size of the landscape image being varied according to a positional relationship with the vehicle.
Techzamazing teaches wherein the control unit varies a display size of a landscape image regardless of variation in the vehicle speed when displaying the landscape image on the display unit, the display size of the landscape image being varied according to a positional relationship with the vehicle (Timestamp 1:02-1:06 teaches the display size of the rock mountain varies regardless of the vehicle speed as the vehicle gets closer. The display size gets so big it can’t fit entirely in the frame by timestamp 1:06. The display size of the rock mountain in the distance teaches a landscape image. This teaches the display size of the landscape image being varied according to a positional relationship with the vehicle).
Isu and Techzamazing are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying an animation or video while a vehicle is moving. Isu teaches a background image around a foreground image. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of displaying an animation of a background image taught by Isu with the landscape image display size taught by Techzamazing in order to simulate the vehicle moving on a display.
22. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isu et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2008242251 A), hereinafter referred to as Isu, in view of Techzamazing (“Real Car Driving Simulator Gameplay Walkthrough (Android, iOS) – Part 1”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2019041195 A).
Regarding claim 3, Isu in view of Techzamazing teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Isu and Techzamazing are not relied upon for the below claim language: wherein the control unit reduces sharpness of the background image when the vehicle speed has increased to a predetermined value or more.
Shimizu teaches wherein the control unit reduces sharpness of the background image when the vehicle speed has increased to a predetermined value or more (Paragraph 17 teaches "wherein the adjustment unit adjusts the amount of motion blur based on the vehicle speed information received from the vehicle speed detection unit so that the motion blur increases as the vehicle speed increases". The motion blur increasing as vehicle speed increases teaches reducing the sharpness of the background image when the vehicle speed increases. The predetermined value can be any increased vehicle speed under broadest reasonable interpretation. Thus, Shimizu teaches reducing the sharpness of the background image when the vehicle speed increases to a predetermined value or more; Paragraph 69 teaches the motion blur is applied to regions around the vehicle. Regions around the vehicle can be interpreted as the background image under broadest reasonable interpretation.).
Isu and Techzamazing are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying an animation or video while a vehicle is moving. Shimizu is considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying an image around the vehicle while the vehicle is moving. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of displaying an animation of a background image around a vehicle image taught by Isu in view of Techzamazing with the reducing a sharpness of the background image taught by Shimizu in order to create a natural-looking footage that takes into account the vehicle’s speed (Shimizu Paragraphs 17-18).
23. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isu et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2008242251 A), hereinafter referred to as Isu, in view of Techzamazing (“Real Car Driving Simulator Gameplay Walkthrough (Android, iOS) – Part 1”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Isu and Morimoto (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2009251687 A), hereinafter referred to as Morimoto .
Regarding claim 5, Isu in view of Techzamazing teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Isu and Techzamazing are not relied upon for the below claim language: wherein the control unit moves the background image to a side opposite to a traveling direction of the vehicle during acceleration of the vehicle, and moves the background image to a side in the traveling direction of the vehicle during deceleration of the vehicle.
Morimoto teaches wherein the control unit moves the background image to a side opposite to a traveling direction of the vehicle during acceleration of the vehicle, and moves the background image to a side in the traveling direction of the vehicle during deceleration of the vehicle (Paragraph 29 teaches "when the acceleration indicates acceleration in the forward direction of the vehicle, the background image moves downward " and "when the acceleration indicates deceleration in the forward direction of the vehicle, the background image moves upward". The background image moving downward when the vehicle is accelerating in a forward direction teaches the background image moving to an opposite side of the traveling direction of the vehicle during the acceleration of the vehicle. The background image moving upward during the deceleration teaches the background image moving to a side in the traveling direction during deceleration of the vehicle).
Isu, Techzamazing, and Morimoto are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying an animation or video while a vehicle is moving. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of displaying an animation of a background image around a vehicle image taught by Isu in view of Techzamazing with the background image moving to a side depending on the acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle taught by Morimoto in order to decrease occurrence of motion sickness for occupants in a vehicle (Morimoto Paragraph 10).
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujii et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160065944 A1) teaches a background image around a vehicle image from a virtual viewpoint.
Yanagi et al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication No. 2016074954 A1) teaches the background image moving in a predetermined direction depending on the acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights