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 .
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (PGPUB Document No. US 2021/0023994) in view of Smit et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2014/309888).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a display control device comprising a control unit configured to cause a display unit to display (“The display controller 14d mainly executes an image processing on image data…and conversion from the acquired image data from the CPU 14a into display image data to be displayed on the display device 8” (Watanabe: 0043)),
Based on surrounding information on vehicle surroundings detectable by a vehicle (“the vehicle 1 includes a plurality of radars 16 (Watanabe: 0030)…sonar 17 capable of measuring the distance to an external object” (Watanabe: 0031)),
A vehicle image showing the vehicle that is viewed from a virtual viewpoint (“a controller configured to superimpose and display an own vehicle image showing a position of the vehicle and an indicator…on a peripheral image as a bird's-eye view image based on the captured image (Watanabe: 0100)),
And a detection state of the surrounding information (“The indicator superimposed and displayed by the CPU 14a serve to make it easy to recognize the attention area that needs for the driver to pay attention such as an object detected by the radar 16 or the sonar 17” (Watanabe: 0041)),
However, Watanabe does not expressly teach but Smit teaches,
And configured to change a display mode of the detection state when the vehicle is in a towing state in which the vehicle is towing a towed object (Smit teaches the need for improving vehicle display systems when a vehicle has a trailer that is being towed (Smit: 0003-0004)). Smit addresses the problem by “The display controller 20 may also be operable to overlay a graphical representation of the predicted heading 40, as well as the vehicle heading 8 and the trailer heading 10, on images of the environment surrounding the vehicle 2 and the trailer 4” (Smit: 0033). Therefore, the combination of Smit and Watanabe teach a non-towing mode and a towing mode. Further, Smit teaches a transition in display mode based on detecting the trailer (Smit: 0037) and detecting change in the steering input apparatus 14 (Smit: 0021). Therefore, the combination of Smit and Watanabe teaches displaying a non-towing mode when there is no trailer detected (and no change in steering), and displaying a towing mode when a trailer is detected (and a change in steering))
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to apply the towing display mode of Smit to the teachings of Watanabe, because this improves vehicle display systems when a vehicle has a trailer that is being towed.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to, when the vehicle is in the towing state, display a towed object image showing the towed object in connection with the vehicle image (a graphical representation of the vehicle and a trailer (Smit: FIG.9, 0017, 0022)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Smit as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Kim et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2014/0036063).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Kim teaches the display control device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to, when displaying the towed object image, shift a position of the vehicle image on the display unit in a traveling direction of the vehicle (the driving direction shifts the top view image accordingly (Kim dynamically shifts the vehicle image on the screen to open up more visual area in the direction of travel, which also corresponds to the area where towed object is located (Kim: FIG.5, 0048-49)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to apply the vehicle image shifting teaching of Kim to the combined teachings above, because this enables an effective method of aiding the driver when moving in reverse, and providing a top view image that further include a towed object.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Smit as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Buckley (PGPUB Document No. US 2008/0186204).
Regarding claim 4, the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to, when the vehicle is in the towing state,
cause the display unit to display information (Buckley outputs visual warning and confirmation messages regarding the trailer status (Buckley: 0019)) indicating that a specific driving assist function is not executed (“the trailer detection module 18 may identify the trailer 102 as an object that is continually detected, and the response module 30 may turn off notification signals relating to the trailer 102” (Buckley: 0026)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to selectively toggle indicator icons as taught by Buckley, because this prevents the driver from relying on inactive assist indicators while driving.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Smit as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Oh (PGPUB Document No. US 2020/0290464).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to, when the vehicle is in the towing state, cause the display unit to display information indicating (outputting visual warning and messages as stated in the rejecting to claim 4 above).
However, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Oh teaches that acceleration performance of the vehicle has changed (in towing mode the acceleration force is reduced (Oh: 0012)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to display the acceleration status (taught by Oh) in addition to the plurality of indicators of the combined teachings above, because this enables an added variety of useful information to be presented to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights