DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on March 13, 2025. Claims 1 – 6 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 09, 2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in The Republic of Japan on October 20, 2020.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 01, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments for amended claim(s) [1], with respect to the rejection of claims 1 - 6 under Rejection 35 U.S.C. § 102 and / or 35 U.S.C. § 103 are discussed below.
On page 5 of the Applicant’s response, the Applicant argues that Ikeda does not teach restricting display of an adjacent lane which is not the destination lane.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Ikeda explicitly teaches restricting display of an adjacent lane with is not the destination lane as demonstrated in (Figs. 4 ~ process method step S104 – restricting display of an adjacent lane (prohibited lane ~ “non-possible” lane) while displaying the destination target lane change (an adjacent lane) as taught with process method step S106, Figs. 9, 10, ¶0085 ~ restricting display of the adjacent lane which is NOT the destination lane (target lane for lane change), ¶0087, ¶0091 ~ "FIG. 9 is a diagram showing another example of the screen of the display device 32... the partition line LM4 out of two partition lines for partitioning the adjacent lane LN3 is not displayed, and the adjacent lane LN3 is not displayed", and ¶0092 ~ "in a situation in which the automated driving control device 100 does not controllably change the lane of the host vehicle M to the adjacent lane LN3, it is possible to allow an occupant to understand that a lane change to the adjacent lane LN3 cannot be performed by restricting display of the adjacent lane LN3". See also Abstract).
On page 6 of the Applicant’s response, Ikeda does not teach helping a driver recognize the direction of a lane change during a lane change.
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion here and offers that Ikeda provides ample teaching wherein Fig. 3; Ikeda, Fig. 4; Ikeda ~ displaying the destination target lane change (an adjacent lane) as taught with process method step S106, Fig. 7, ¶0079; Ikeda ~ "acquires information of a target trajectory generated by the target trajectory generator 144", and ¶0089; Ikeda ~ "Fig. 7... showing... the screen of the display device 32... TR represents a target trajectory. In the shown example, the HMI controller 174 causes the display device 32 to further display a target trajectory TR superimposed in addition to the partition lines described in FIG. 6"). The combination of Ikeda/Hayakawa is further relied upon to display an indication indicating a direction of the lane change wherein ¶0057; Hayakawa ~ "FIG. 4A illustrates the second lane change information presented on the presentation device 15… the display... with a lane change destination of the subject vehicle Y which is displayed using a visual pattern such as an arrow, and an acceptance button"
Please see detailed rejections below.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0312151 A1 to IKEDA et al. (herein after "Hayakawa"), already of record from IDS).
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
Ikeda’s vehicle display control device discloses a display system (see Fig. 1 ~ outlines a block configuration of vehicle system 1 comprising an HMI 30 having a display device 32 and ¶0041 ~ vehicle system 1 includes the display device 32) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
810
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a display device provided at an inside of a vehicle (see Fig. 1 ~ display device 32, ¶0007 ~ a display controller… displays information regarding lane changes, Abstract ~ display device); and
a processor configured to control the display device (see Fig. 17 ~ outlines hardware configuration of the automated driving control device 100,
PNG
media_image2.png
454
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
see ¶0053 ~ automated driving control device 100 includes controllers comprising a processor, and ¶0100 ~ a CPU 100-2).
wherein when an autonomous lane change assistance of the vehicle is executed if there are adjacent lanes on both sides of a running lane of the vehicle (see Fig. 4 ~ outlines a process flow chart for execution of autonomous lane change assistance and
PNG
media_image3.png
812
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
see ¶0083 ~ automated driving control device 100 executes processing by a behavior plan generator 140 which "determines whether a lane change to the adjacent lane can be performed on the basis of the type of partition line for partitioning both lanes between the host lane and the adjacent lane." Figs. 6 – 7 also illustrates adjacent lanes (LN1 and LN3 respectively) on both sides of a running lane L2 of the vehicle M and as further taught in ¶0087), the processor is configured to
display the running lane and a destination lane of a lane change (see Fig. 7, ¶0079 ~ "acquires information of a target trajectory generated by the target trajectory generator 144", ¶0086 ~ ” in a case where it is determined by the behavior plan generator 140 that a lane change to the adjacent lane can be performed, the HMI controller 174 causes the display device 32 to display the adjacent lane, the host lane or the like”, and ¶0089 ~ "Fig. 7... showing... the screen of the display device 32... TR represents a target trajectory. In the shown example, the HMI controller 174 causes the display device 32 to further display a target trajectory TR superimposed in addition to the partition lines described in FIG. 6") and
PNG
media_image4.png
376
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
374
648
media_image5.png
Greyscale
restrict display of an adjacent lane which is not the destination lane. (See Figs. 4 ~ process method step S104 – restricting display of an adjacent lane (prohibited lane ~ “non-possible” lane) while displaying the destination target lane change (an adjacent lane) as taught with process method step S106, Figs. 9, 10, ¶0085 ~ restricting display of the adjacent lane which is NOT the destination lane (target lane for lane change), ¶0087, ¶0091 ~ "FIG. 9 is a diagram showing another example of the screen of the display device 32... the partition line LM4 out of two partition lines for partitioning the adjacent lane LN3 is not displayed, and the adjacent lane LN3 is not displayed", and ¶0092 ~ "in a situation in which the automated driving control device 100 does not controllably change the lane of the host vehicle M to the adjacent lane LN3, it is possible to allow an occupant to understand that a lane change to the adjacent lane LN3 cannot be performed by restricting display of the adjacent lane LN3". See also Abstract).
PNG
media_image6.png
368
648
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
358
644
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 5,
Ikeda discloses a display method performed by a computer (see Figs. 1 and 3 - 4, and ¶0041 ~ vehicle system 1 includes the display device 32), comprising:
when an autonomous lane change assistance of a vehicle is executed if there are adjacent lanes on both sides of a running lane of the vehicle (see Fig. 4 ~ outlines a process flow chart for execution of autonomous lane change assistance and ¶0083 ~ automated driving control device 100 executes processing by a behavior plan generator 140 which "determines whether a lane change to the adjacent lane can be performed on the basis of the type of partition line for partitioning both lanes between the host lane and the adjacent lane"),
controlling a display device provided at an inside of the vehicle so as to display the running lane and a destination lane of a lane change (see Figs. 3 - 4, 7, ¶0079 ~ "acquires information of a target trajectory generated by the target trajectory generator 144", and ¶0089 ~ "Fig. 7... showing... the screen of the display device 32... TR represents a target trajectory. In the shown example, the HMI controller 174 causes the display device 32 to further display a target trajectory TR superimposed in addition to the partition lines described in FIG. 6") and
restrict display of an adjacent lane which is not the destination lane. (See Figs. 9 - 10, ¶0091 ~ "FIG. 9 is a diagram showing another example of the screen of the display device 32... the partition line LM4 out of two partition lines for partitioning the adjacent lane LN3 is not displayed, and the adjacent lane LN3 is not displayed", and ¶0092 ~ "in a situation in which the automated driving control device 100 does not controllably change the lane of the host vehicle M to the adjacent lane LN3, it is possible to allow an occupant to understand that a lane change to the adjacent lane LN3 cannot be performed by restricting display of the adjacent lane LN3". See also Abstract).
As to Claim 6,
Ikeda discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one of more instructions which when executed by a computer (see at least Figs. 1,17, and ¶0014 ~ a computer readable non-transitory storage medium) cause the computer to perform:
when an autonomous lane change assistance of a vehicle is executed if there are adjacent lanes on both sides of a running lane of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 4 ~ outlines a process flow chart for execution of autonomous lane change assistance and ¶0083 ~ automated driving control device 100 executes processing by a behavior plan generator 140 which "determines whether a lane change to the adjacent lane can be performed on the basis of the type of partition line for partitioning both lanes between the host lane and the adjacent lane"),
controlling a display device provided at an inside of the vehicle so as to display the running lane and a destination lane of a lane change (see at least Figs. 3 - 4, 7, ¶0079 ~ "acquires information of a target trajectory generated by the target trajectory generator 144", and ¶0089 ~ "Fig. 7... showing... the screen of the display device 32... TR represents a target trajectory. In the shown example, the HMI controller 174 causes the display device 32 to further display a target trajectory TR superimposed in addition to the partition lines described in FIG. 6") and
restrict display of an adjacent lane which is not the destination lane. (See at least Figs. 9 - 10, ¶0091 ~ "FIG. 9 is a diagram showing another example of the screen of the display device 32... the partition line LM4 out of two partition lines for partitioning the adjacent lane LN3 is not displayed, and the adjacent lane LN3 is not displayed", and ¶0092 ~ "in a situation in which the automated driving control device 100 does not controllably change the lane of the host vehicle M to the adjacent lane LN3, it is possible to allow an occupant to understand that a lane change to the adjacent lane LN3 cannot be performed by restricting display of the adjacent lane LN3". See also Abstract).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0312151 A1 to IKEDA et al. (herein after "Hayakawa"), already of record from IDS) as to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0237739 A1 to HAYAKAWA et al. (herein after "Hayakawa").
As to Claim 2,
As shown above, Ikeda’s vehicle display control device discloses the display system according to claim 1 (see Figs. 1, 3 - 4, ¶0041, and ¶0091 - ¶0092; Ikeda), but is silent in disclosing wherein the display displays an indication indicating a direction of the lane change.
On the other hand, Hayakawa’s vehicle control device displaying an indication indicating a direction of the lane change. (See ¶0057; Hayakawa ~ "FIG. 4A illustrates the second lane change information presented on the presentation device 15… the display... with a lane change destination of the subject vehicle Y which is displayed using a visual pattern such as an arrow, and an acceptance button").
To that end, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ikeda’s vehicle display control device with the visual lane change indicator, as taught by Hayakawa to provide timely visual cues, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: safer, more reliable autonomous lane changes.
As to Claim 3,
Ikeda/ Hayakawa discloses the display system according to claim 2,
wherein the indication is an arrow. (See Fig. 4A and ¶0057; Hayakawa).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0312151 A1 to IKEDA et al. (herein after "Hayakawa"), already of record from IDS) as to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0150540 A1 to KIM et al. (herein after "Kim").
As to Claim 4,
As shown above, Ikeda’s vehicle display control device discloses the display system according to claim 1 (see Figs. 1, 3 - 4, ¶0041, and ¶0091 - ¶0092; Ikeda), but is silent in disclosing wherein is configured to
keep displaying the destination lane while the autonomous lane change assistance is being executed, regardless of a speed of the vehicle.
Conversely, Kim’s route providing device discloses keep displaying the destination lane while the autonomous lane change assistance is being executed, regardless of a speed of the vehicle. (See ¶0030 ~ " the processor may output information inquiring whether to change to a second lane on a display of the vehicle when there is the second lane in which the vehicle can travel at the set speed" and ¶0610 ~ "When it is determined based on the autonomous driving visibility information that there is the second lane in which the vehicle can keep traveling at the set speed, the processor 830 may control the vehicle to change a lane to the second lane while traveling at the set speed (S1540)).
Consequently, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Ikeda’s vehicle display control device with the vehicle speed maintenance display functionality, as taught by Kim to provide vehicle speed pacing through the lane change maneuver, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: safer, more reliable autonomous lane changes and mitigated traffic merging congestions and/or stutters.
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 ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights