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 .
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 parent Application No. JP2022-137574, filed on 08/31/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 filed on 02/19/2025 are presently examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 101. Regarding claim 8, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “non-temporary recording medium” is drawn to a transitory signal.
See MPEP 2106.03(I): Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-5, and 6 are, respectively, directed to a control device and system (i.e. a machine). Claim 7 is directed to a computer executed method. Therefore, claims 1-7 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 8, as indicated above, is rejected for not being within at least one of the four statutory categories. In addition, claim 8 recites similar limitations as claims 1 and 5-7, and will be rejected under similar analysis.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites similar limitations as independent claims 6-8 and will be used as a representative claim.
Claim 1 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
A display control device controlling a display operation of a display medium that is mounted in a vehicle and displays information toward a traveling direction of the vehicle, the display control device recognizing, based on a recognition result of an external sensor mounted in the vehicle, a distance between the vehicle and another vehicle present in the traveling direction of the vehicle;
causing the display medium to display distance information used for announcing the recognized distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle; and
changing the distance information displayed on the display medium in accordance with a change in the recognized distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person using pen and paper to display distance information on a paper, the distance information being the distance between an ego vehicle and another vehicle, and changing said distance as it changes. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A display control device controlling a display operation of a display medium that is mounted in a vehicle and displays information toward a traveling direction of the vehicle, the display control device recognizing, based on a recognition result of an external sensor mounted in the vehicle, a distance between the vehicle and another vehicle present in the traveling direction of the vehicle;
causing the display medium to display distance information used for announcing the recognized distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle; and
changing the distance information displayed on the display medium in accordance with a change in the recognized distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely use a computer (processor, generic computer components) to perform otherwise mental judgements and is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Dependent claims 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 well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 is the closest to overcoming the 101 rejection. However, there isn’t a direct, positive recitation of control of the vehicle. Determination of whether to brake the vehicle isn’t positive recitation of control compared to directly braking the vehicle. Examiner recommends reciting positive control of the vehicle using claim 3 in the independent claims to overcome the 101 rejection.
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.
(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, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 12397641 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 6-8, Kim discloses A display control device controlling a display operation of a display medium that is mounted in a vehicle and displays information toward a traveling direction of the vehicle ([column 2, lines 17-19] “a vehicle information display device comprising a display section on at least one side of the front and rear of a vehicle”), the display control device recognizing, based on a recognition result of an external sensor mounted in the vehicle, a distance between the vehicle and another vehicle present in the traveling direction of the vehicle; causing the display medium to display distance information used for announcing the recognized distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle ([column 2, lines 19-23] “a sensor section provided on … the front … of the vehicle to measure at least one of the distances and speeds from nearby vehicles or obstacles approaching the front … of the vehicle” [column 2, lines 35-38] “display at least one of a video, an image, … or a number or text corresponding to measurement data measured by the sensor section.”);
and changing the distance information displayed on the display medium in accordance with a change in the recognized distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle ([column 6, lines 33-36] “display information for safe driving, such as control information of the device installed vehicle (1000), separation distance between preceding or following vehicles” [column 2, lines 35-38] “display at least one of a video, an image, … or a number or text corresponding to measurement data measured by the sensor section”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses The display control device according to claim 1, wherein 16 the distance information includes first distance information including character information or image information, and second distance information including character information or image information, a display aspect of the second distance information being different from a display aspect of the first distance information, and the first distance information and the second distance information are alternately displayed ([column 2, lines 64-47] “displaying not only the separation distance and speed, but also intuitive texts such as, but not limited to, ‘stop’ or ‘slow down’ corresponding thereto.” [column 7, lines 15-23] “when the following vehicle gets closer to the device-installed vehicle (1000) by a safe distance or less, the control section (300), based on the measurement data of the sensor section (200), displays the texts such as, but not limited to, ‘Collision warning’ or ‘Deceleration required’, etc., or displays the separation distance between the device installed vehicle (1000) and the following vehicle, the speed of the following vehicle, etc. as numbers on the display section”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urmson et al. (US 8954252 B1), hereinafter referred to as Urmson.
Regarding claim 2, Kim fails to explicitly disclose The display control device according to claim 1, which after causing the display medium to display the distance information, determines, based on the recognition result of the external sensor, whether the other vehicle starts crossing a path of the vehicle, and whether the distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle is a distance at which the vehicle needs to brake; and when the other vehicle starts crossing the path of the vehicle and the distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle is a distance at which the vehicle needs to brake, causes the display medium to display stop information used for announcing that the vehicle stops.
However, Urmson teaches determine, based on the recognition result of the external sensor, whether the other vehicle starts crossing a path of the vehicle, and whether the distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle is a distance at which the vehicle needs to brake; and when the other vehicle starts crossing the path of the vehicle and the distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle is a distance at which the vehicle needs to brake, causes the display medium to display stop information used for announcing that the vehicle stops ([column 6, lines 60-62] “The vehicle may also include components 148 for detecting objects and conditions external to the vehicle such as other vehicles.” [column 10, lines 65-57 ] “determine whether the object is attempting to cross the roadway in which vehicle 101 is currently driving.” [column 13, lines 8-13] “If the computer determines that a projected path of an object will cross with the projected path the computer at block 1112, computer 110 selects a plan of action at block 1114. The plan of action may include one of stopping the vehicle and yielding to the object, slowing the vehicle down and yielding to the object” [column 14, lines 28-33] “determining whether the vehicle is able to come to a complete stop within a threshold distance is based on … the distance between the vehicle and the projected path of the object along the projected path of the vehicle” [column 2, lines 40-44] “notification is provided by displaying an image indicative of the selected plan of action on an electronic sign mounted on the vehicle. In another example, the notification is provided by displaying text indicative of the selected plan of action on an electronic sign mounted on the vehicle.” [column 9, lines 26-31] “electronic displays … located along … the front of vehicle 101 (FIG. 6B).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Urmson’s teaching of automatically braking when another vehicle crosses paths and the distance falls below a threshold, and displaying on the externally mounted display the intention of the vehicle to stop. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to include the displaying of the intent of the vehicle to stop in said conditions in order to notify pedestrians among other traffic participants of the intent of the vehicle that way the vehicle is predictable for anticipating safety (Urmson [column 13, lines 24-26] “provide a notification of the intent of the vehicle to a pedestrian without requiring the driver to select the plan initiate the notification.” [column 1, lines 45-47] “simply stopping a vehicle without these driver-initiated signals may not be sufficiently reassuring to the pedestrian that it is indeed safe to cross.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as well as overcoming their 35 USC 101 rejection. As recommended above, examiner suggests reciting direct positive control of braking of the vehicle using claim 3 in the independent claims to overcome the 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the following limitation is not disclosed nor reasonably suggested by the prior art of record:
determines whether the distance between the vehicle and the other vehicle is a distance at which the vehicle needs to brake, based on a time obtained by adding a reaction time of a driver of the other vehicle to the recognized time to collision.
The closest prior art of record to the above limitation are:
Larsson (US 20220250644 A1) which teaches a safety distance based on a reaction time of other road users.
Philipp et al. (US 20250329126 A1) which teaches a braking distance of other road users and the determination of a reaction time of other road users.
Gutmann et al. (US 20190155292 A1) which teaches an estimated reaction time of other vehicles and how much the other vehicle will have to decelerate.
Reinisch (WO 2011092229 A1) which teaches determining time to collision and the reaction time of the ego vehicle’s driver to calculate a collision avoidance remaining time.
Russell et al. (US 10824148 B2) which teaches the determination of reaction time of other drivers for ego vehicle maneuvers.
None of the reference disclose a time determined based on the addition of a reaction time of the other vehicle and a recognized time to collision to determine a distance at which the ego vehicle needs to brake.
Regarding claim 5, the following limitation is not disclosed nor reasonably suggested by the prior art of record:
display the distance information in a state where the vehicle is traveling autonomously on a priority road toward an intersection between the priority road and a non-priority road, and before the other vehicle is traveling non-autonomously from the non-priority road into the intersection
The closest prior art of record to the above limitation are:
Kim (US 12397641 B2) which teaches the external display of a distance to another vehicle in order to avoid collision.
Urmson et al. (US 8954252 B1) which teaches the external display of the intention of the ego vehicle to inform other road users or pedestrians.
Neither prior art nor other art of record teaches an ego autonomous vehicle travelling on a priority road toward an intersection, displaying the distance between itself and another vehicle travelling non-autonomously on a non-priority road before the intersection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights