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(s) 1 - 9 are pending for examination.
This Action is made NON-FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/327926 (reference application).
Table has been created below to compare claims of the instant application and claims of the copending application side by side.
Instant Application 19/175126
Copending Application 18/327926
1. A display control device for a vehicle, comprising a processor configured to: acquire a position of an obstacle in a vehicle's surroundings; determine a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; perform superimposed display of information at the position of the obstacle as viewed by a vehicle occupant, at a display region provided in front of the vehicle occupant, wherein the display of information is performed in a first manner if the determined distance is greater than a predetermined threshold and in a second manner if the determined distance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold; determine whether the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle; and delete the display of the information when it is determined that the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle while the information is displayed so the vehicle occupant can identify a new obstacle at an early stage.
1. A display control device for a vehicle, comprising a processor configured to: acquire a position of an obstacle in a vehicle's surroundings; determine a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; perform superimposed display of information on a windshield of the vehicle with a heads-up-displayed device at the position of the obstacle as viewed by a vehicle occupant, at a display region provided in front of the vehicle occupant, wherein the display of information is performed in a first manner if the determined distance is greater than a predetermined threshold and in a second manner if the determined distance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold; determine whether the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle; and delete the display of the information when it is determined that the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle while the information is displayed so the vehicle occupant can identify a new obstacle at an early stage; wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that a sightline direction of the vehicle occupant is directed toward the obstacle, and while the occupant's sightline is directed toward the object, change the color or the shape of the information; wherein the processor displays a mark and displays a type of the obstacle in the vicinity of the mark.
2. The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor acquires a sightline direction of the vehicle occupant, and deletes the display of the information in a case in which a sightline direction of the vehicle occupant, which has been acquired, has been directed toward the obstacle for a predetermined time.
2. The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor acquires a sightline direction of the vehicle occupant, wherein delete the display of the information in a case in which a sightline direction of the vehicle occupant, which has been acquired, has been directed toward the obstacle for a predetermined time.
3. The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor acquires a steering direction of the vehicle, and deletes the display of the information in a case in which the steering direction of the vehicle, which has been acquired, is a direction of moving away from the obstacle.
3. The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor acquires a steering direction of the vehicle, wherein delete the display of the information in a case in which the steering direction of the vehicle, which has been acquired, is a direction of moving away from the obstacle.
4. The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor acquires an acceleration of the vehicle, and deletes the display of the information in a case in which the acceleration of the vehicle, which has been acquired, has decreased by a predetermined amount or more.
4. The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor acquires an acceleration of the vehicle, wherein delete the display of the information in a case in which the acceleration of the vehicle, which has been acquired, has decreased by a predetermined amount or more.
5. The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the display region comprises a portion of a windshield glass onto which images are projected in front of a sightline of a driver by a head-up display device.
5. The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the display region comprises a portion of a windshield glass onto which images are projected in front of a sightline of a driver by a head-up display device.
6. A display system for a vehicle, the system comprising: the display control device for a vehicle of claim 1; and a head-up display device configured to project images onto a windshield glass.
6. A display system for a vehicle, the system comprising: the display control device for a vehicle of claim 1; and a head-up display device configured to project images onto a windshield glass.
7. A display control method for a vehicle, the method comprising: acquiring a position of an obstacle that is in a vehicle's surroundings; determining a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; displaying information at the position of the obstacle as viewed by a vehicle occupant, at a display region within a vehicle cabin, wherein the information is displayed in a first manner if the determined distance is greater than a predetermined threshold and in a second manner if the determined distance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold; determining whether the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle; and when it is determined that the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle while the information is displayed, deleting display of the information.
7. A display control method for a vehicle, the method comprising: acquiring a position of an obstacle that is in a vehicle's surroundings; determining a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; displaying information on a windshield of the vehicle with a heads-up-displayed device at the position of the obstacle as viewed by a vehicle occupant, at a display region within a vehicle cabin, wherein the information is displayed in a first manner if the determined distance is greater than a predetermined threshold and in a second manner if the determined distance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold; determining whether the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle; and when it is determined that the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle while the information is displayed, deleting display of the information; wherein the method further comprises: determining that a sightline direction of the vehicle occupant is directed toward the obstacle, and while the occupant's sightline is directed toward the object, change the color or the shape of the information; and displaying a mark and displaying a type of the obstacle in the vicinity of the mark.
8. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by a computer to execute processing comprising: acquiring a position of an obstacle that is in a vehicle's surroundings; determining a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; displaying information on a windshield of the vehicle with a heads-up-displayed device at the position of the obstacle as viewed by a vehicle occupant, at a display region within a vehicle cabin, wherein the information is displayed in a first manner if the determined distance is greater than a predetermined threshold and in a second manner if the determined distance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold; determining whether the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle; and when it is determined that the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle while the information is displayed, deleting display of the information.
8. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by a computer to execute processing comprising: acquiring a position of an obstacle that is in a vehicle's surroundings; determining a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle; displaying information on a windshield of the vehicle with a heads-up-displayed device at the position of the obstacle as viewed by a vehicle occupant, at a display region within a vehicle cabin, wherein the information is displayed in a first manner if the determined distance is greater than a predetermined threshold and in a second manner if the determined distance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold; determining whether the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle; and when it is determined that the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle while the information is displayed, deleting display of the information; wherein the processing further comprises: determining that a sightline direction of the vehicle occupant is directed toward the obstacle, and while the occupant's sightline is directed toward the object, change the color or the shape of the information; and displaying a mark and displaying a type of the obstacle in the vicinity of the mark.
9. The display control device of claim 1, wherein the first manner comprises displaying the information in a first color, and the second manner comprises displaying the information in a second color.
9. The display control device of claim 1, wherein the first manner comprises displaying the information in first color, and the second manner comprises displaying the information in a second color.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to A display control device, method, and non-transitory storage medium storing a program for a vehicle. Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected based on claim(s) 1-9 of the copending application. Minor differences can be seen and noted in the table above, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the device, method, and non-transitory storage medium storing a program of the copending application to produce the device, method, and non-transitory storage medium storing a program of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 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) 1-2, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20200180519 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 20220179223 A1, hereinafter known as Thompson).
Regarding claim 1, Mori teaches A display control device for a vehicle, comprising a processor configured to: acquire a position of an obstacle in a vehicle's surroundings;
{Abstract “A display control device for a vehicle include: an acquisition unit that acquires information of an object located at a progress path of the vehicle; and a display control unit that, on the basis of the information acquired by the acquisition unit, causes information of the object to be displayed at a display unit of a spectacles-form wearable terminal, the wearable terminal being provided with the display unit and being configured to be worn by an occupant of the vehicle.”
Fig. 6 shows the system acquiring an pedestrian that is cross the street which can be considered an obstacle.
Para [0045] “The ITS-ECU 26 executes object notification processing, which is described below, on the basis of infrastructure information received from the traffic condition provision system 12. The ITS-ECU 26 includes at least a central processing unit (CPU), a memory that serves as a temporary storage area, and a nonvolatile storage unit. A control program that causes the ITS-ECU 26 to execute the object notification processing is stored in the storage unit. The CPU of the ITS-ECU 26 reads the control program from the storage unit, loads the control program into the memory, and executes the loaded control program.”
}
determine a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle;
{Para [0057] “In step 104, the ITS-ECU 26 makes a determination as to whether the automobile has entered the processing target intersection. If the result of the determination in step 104 is negative, the ITS-ECU 26 proceeds to step 106. In step 106, the ITS-ECU 26 calculates a distance between the position of the intersection contained in the received infrastructure information and a position of the present vehicle detected by the GPS sensor 28, and makes a determination as to whether the present vehicle is within a predetermined distance L2 from the processing targeting intersection (L2<L1). If the result of the determination in step 106 is negative, the ITS-ECU 26 returns to step 100, and if the result of the determination in step 106 is affirmative, the ITS-ECU 26 proceeds to step 108.”
Para [0059] “On the other hand, if an object such as a walker, cyclist or the like is present within the predetermined range from the path along which the present vehicle turning at the processing target intersection is expected to proceed, there is a possibility of the present vehicle approaching to less than a predetermined distance from the object when the present vehicle turns at the processing target intersection. Therefore, if the result of the determination in step 108 is affirmative, the ITS-ECU 26 proceeds to step 110 and specifies that the walker, cyclist or the like located within the predetermined range from the expected progress route is a notification object. Then, in step 112, the ITS-ECU 26 executes AR display control processing.”
}
perform superimposed display of information at the position of the obstacle as viewed by a vehicle occupant, at a display region provided in front of the vehicle occupant,
{ Fig. 6 shows the system acquiring an pedestrian that is cross the street which can be considered an obstacle.
Para [0065-0066] “FIG. 6 illustrates an example of a field of view seen through the AR glasses 40 by the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 as a result of the processing described above in the situation illustrated in FIG. 5. In the example illustrated in FIG. 6, a graphic 66 representing the walker 62 who is obscured by the obstruction 64 as seen by the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 is included in the field of view. Therefore, the occupant can be made aware of the presence of the walker 62 who is obscured by the obstruction 64. In the example illustrated in FIG. 6, a rectangular frame 68 that emphasizes the area in which the walker 62 who is obscured by the obstruction 64 is located is also included. Therefore, because the graphic 66 is displayed, a case of the occupant failing to notice the presence of the notified walker 62 who is obscured by the obstruction 64 can be suppressed.
The frame 68 emphasizing the area in which the notification object is located is also displayed in a case in which the notification object is not obscured by an obstruction as seen by the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40. Therefore, even in a case in which a notification object is not obscured by an obstruction, a case of the occupant failing to notice the presence of the notification object can be suppressed.”
}
determine whether the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle; and
delete the display of the information when it is determined that the vehicle occupant has perceived the obstacle while the information is displayed so the vehicle occupant can identify a new obstacle at an early stage.
{Para [0076-0078] “In step 130, the ITS-ECU 26 acquires results of detection of the eyeline of the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 according to the eyeline cameras 50 of the AR glasses 40. In step 132, on the basis of the eyeline detection results acquired in step 130, the ITS-ECU 26 makes a determination as to whether the graphic 66 and frame 68 or the like displayed at the display unit 46 of the AR glasses 40 has been seen by the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40. More specifically, the ITS-ECU 26 makes a determination as to whether, for example, the eyeline of the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 has spent at least a predetermined duration (for example, a duration of around one second) at the display position of the graphic 66 and frame 68 or the like in the display unit 46 of the AR glasses 40.
If the result of the determination in step 132 is negative, the ITS-ECU 26 proceeds to step 136. Alternatively, if the result of the determination in step 132 is affirmative, the ITS-ECU 26 may determine that the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 is aware of the presence of the notification object corresponding with the graphic 66 and frame 68 or the like seen by the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40, and the ITS-ECU 26 proceeds to step 134.
In step 134, the ITS-ECU 26 causes a display at the display unit 46 of the AR glasses 40, in which the display of the graphic 66 and frame 68 or the like that the ITS-ECU 26 determines has been seen by the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 is erased. Thus, overcrowding of displays of the graphic 66, the frame 68 and the like in the display unit 46 of the AR glasses 40 may be suppressed.”
}
Mori does not teach, wherein the display of information is performed in a first manner if the determined distance is greater than a predetermined threshold and in a second manner if the determined distance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold;
However, Thompson teaches
determine a distance from the vehicle to the obstacle;
wherein the display of information is performed in a first manner if the determined distance is greater than a predetermined threshold and in a second manner if the determined distance is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold;
{Para [0037] “Referring also to FIG. 2B, in embodiments the HUD 100 traffic overlay may arrange and/or modify interactive symbology 212a-e based on one or more criteria (e.g., horizontal distance from ownship, angular displacement from boresight) selectable by the pilot and modifiable via the heads-up controller 206. For example, the control processors 202 may determine that the position of the proximate aircraft corresponding to the interactive symbol 212a is closest to the ownship position, and that therefore the interactive symbol 212a is to be placed first in the ordered sequence of interactive symbols 212a-d. In some embodiments, the interactive symbol 212a may also be displayed with increased or reduced prominence (e.g., greater or lesser brightness, increased or decreased size, change in color) relative to other interactive symbols to reflect the proximity of the corresponding aircraft 112 (e.g., or more generally the priority of the corresponding aircraft with respect to the ordered sequence of aircraft reporting position information). Similarly, the pilot may (e.g., via the heads-up controller 206, advance in turn through the interactive symbols 212b-d corresponding to more distant aircraft 112 (e.g., but still within the FOV of the HUD 100), and then to the interactive symbol 212e corresponding to a “parked” aircraft behind the ownship and/or its pilot (and thereby represented by a dashed symbol positioned at an edge of the FOV of the HUD 100 and corresponding to the relative position of the “parked” aircraft).”
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori to incorporate the teachings of Thompson to arrange and adjust Hud markers based on proximity (e.g. distance) because it improves situational awareness (Thompson para [0035] “Broadly speaking, embodiments of the inventive concepts disclosed herein are directed to a heads-up display (HUD) and user interface incorporating interactive heads-up display and control of traffic targets. For example, traffic information may be displayed via the HUD in conformance to actual proximate traffic, and interactive controls allow the pilot to directly manage traffic targets through the HUD while eyes-out, eliminating the need to cycle back and forth with heads-down traffic displays and enhancing general situational awareness.”)
Regarding claim 2, Mori in view of Thompson teaches The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1.
Mori teaches wherein the processor acquires a sightline direction of the vehicle occupant, and deletes the display of the information in a case in which a sightline direction of the vehicle occupant, which has been acquired, has been directed toward the obstacle for a predetermined time.
{Para [0076-0078] “In step 130, the ITS-ECU 26 acquires results of detection of the eyeline of the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 according to the eyeline cameras 50 of the AR glasses 40. In step 132, on the basis of the eyeline detection results acquired in step 130, the ITS-ECU 26 makes a determination as to whether the graphic 66 and frame 68 or the like displayed at the display unit 46 of the AR glasses 40 has been seen by the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40. More specifically, the ITS-ECU 26 makes a determination as to whether, for example, the eyeline of the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 has spent at least a predetermined duration (for example, a duration of around one second) at the display position of the graphic 66 and frame 68 or the like in the display unit 46 of the AR glasses 40.
If the result of the determination in step 132 is negative, the ITS-ECU 26 proceeds to step 136. Alternatively, if the result of the determination in step 132 is affirmative, the ITS-ECU 26 may determine that the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 is aware of the presence of the notification object corresponding with the graphic 66 and frame 68 or the like seen by the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40, and the ITS-ECU 26 proceeds to step 134.
In step 134, the ITS-ECU 26 causes a display at the display unit 46 of the AR glasses 40, in which the display of the graphic 66 and frame 68 or the like that the ITS-ECU 26 determines has been seen by the occupant wearing the AR glasses 40 is erased. Thus, overcrowding of displays of the graphic 66, the frame 68 and the like in the display unit 46 of the AR glasses 40 may be suppressed.”
}
Regarding claim 7, it recites A display control method for a vehicle having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding Claim 9, Mori in view of Thompson teaches The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1.
Thompson teaches wherein the first manner comprises displaying the information in a first color, and the second manner comprises displaying the information in a second color.
{Para [0037] “Referring also to FIG. 2B, in embodiments the HUD 100 traffic overlay may arrange and/or modify interactive symbology 212a-e based on one or more criteria (e.g., horizontal distance from ownship, angular displacement from boresight) selectable by the pilot and modifiable via the heads-up controller 206. For example, the control processors 202 may determine that the position of the proximate aircraft corresponding to the interactive symbol 212a is closest to the ownship position, and that therefore the interactive symbol 212a is to be placed first in the ordered sequence of interactive symbols 212a-d. In some embodiments, the interactive symbol 212a may also be displayed with increased or reduced prominence (e.g., greater or lesser brightness, increased or decreased size, change in color) relative to other interactive symbols to reflect the proximity of the corresponding aircraft 112 (e.g., or more generally the priority of the corresponding aircraft with respect to the ordered sequence of aircraft reporting position information). Similarly, the pilot may (e.g., via the heads-up controller 206, advance in turn through the interactive symbols 212b-d corresponding to more distant aircraft 112 (e.g., but still within the FOV of the HUD 100), and then to the interactive symbol 212e corresponding to a “parked” aircraft behind the ownship and/or its pilot (and thereby represented by a dashed symbol positioned at an edge of the FOV of the HUD 100 and corresponding to the relative position of the “parked” aircraft).”
}
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20200180519 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 20220179223 A1, hereinafter known as Thompson) and Nagasawa et al. (US 20140092134 A1, hereinafter known as Nagasawa).
Regarding Claim 3, Mori in view of Thompson teaches The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1.
Mori in view of Thompson does not teach wherein the processor acquires a steering direction of the vehicle, and deletes the display of the information in a case in which the steering direction of the vehicle, which has been acquired, is a direction of moving away from the obstacle.
Nagasawa teaches wherein the processor acquire a steering direction of the vehicle, wherein delete the display of the information in a case in which the steering direction of the vehicle, which has been acquired, is a direction of moving away from the obstacle.
{Para [0064] “FIG. 11 indicates that the attention attracting indication LA is erased and only the virtual line L is presented so that the attention attracting indication LA is displayed less conspicuously than the virtual line L after the driver A steered around the object outside of the vehicle (bicycle B) by steering operation.”
Para [0074] “With the configuration as described above, natural visual guidance can be achieved in such a manner that the gaze of the driver is guided from the course based on the virtual line to the object outside of the vehicle to which it is necessary to pay attention, and further, the evasion by an steering operation of the driver is detected, and the attention attracting indication is erased, so that the indication on the windshield is simplified, which reduces the burden imposed on the driver.”
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori in view of Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Nagasawa to erase the visual indication due to steering away because as discussed in para [0074] of Nagasawa “With the configuration as described above, natural visual guidance can be achieved in such a manner that the gaze of the driver is guided from the course based on the virtual line to the object outside of the vehicle to which it is necessary to pay attention, and further, the evasion by an steering operation of the driver is detected, and the attention attracting indication is erased, so that the indication on the windshield is simplified, which reduces the burden imposed on the driver.”
Regarding Claim 5, Mori in view of Thompson teaches The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1.
Mori in view of Thompson does not teach wherein the display region comprises a portion of a windshield glass onto which images are projected in front of a sightline of a driver by a head-up display device.
Nagasawa teaches wherein the display region comprises a portion of a windshield glass onto which images are projected in front of a sightline of a driver by a head-up display device.
{Abstract “A visual guidance system includes an image display to present an image overlaid on a windshield in front of a driver of a vehicle, a processor to output image information on a virtual line to display visual guidance to the image display, and a steering input detector to detect a steering input. The processor presents an attention attracting indication about an object outside of the vehicle in synchronization with the virtual line in such a manner that the virtual line extends from above the driver along a course of the vehicle seen within the windshield, and a pointing end of the virtual line is overlaid on a road surface on the course seen within the windshield. The processor outputs image information for changing the attention attracting indication to be less conspicuous than the virtual line in accordance with a steering input signal given by the steering input detector.”
Fig. 6- fig. 11 are illustrations of the display system
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori in view of Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Nagasawa to use a heads up display on a windshield because it reduces driving burden (Nagasawa para [0013] “In order to reduce the burden imposed on the driver, it is an object of the present invention is a visual guidance system configured to timely present a visual guide for notifying a driving direction and objects outside of a vehicle on the basis of a steering input signal.”)
Regarding Claim 6, Mori in view of Thompson teaches A display system for a vehicle, the system comprising: the display control device for a vehicle of claim 1;
{Mori abstract “A display control device for a vehicle include: an acquisition unit that acquires information of an object located at a progress path of the vehicle; and a display control unit that, on the basis of the information acquired by the acquisition unit, causes information of the object to be displayed at a display unit of a spectacles-form wearable terminal, the wearable terminal being provided with the display unit and being configured to be worn by an occupant of the vehicle.”
Fig. 1 shows the overall display system
}
Mori in view of Thompson does not teach and a head-up display device configured to project images onto a windshield glass.
Nagasawa teaches and a head-up display device configured to project images onto a windshield glass.
{Abstract “A visual guidance system includes an image display to present an image overlaid on a windshield in front of a driver of a vehicle, a processor to output image information on a virtual line to display visual guidance to the image display, and a steering input detector to detect a steering input. The processor presents an attention attracting indication about an object outside of the vehicle in synchronization with the virtual line in such a manner that the virtual line extends from above the driver along a course of the vehicle seen within the windshield, and a pointing end of the virtual line is overlaid on a road surface on the course seen within the windshield. The processor outputs image information for changing the attention attracting indication to be less conspicuous than the virtual line in accordance with a steering input signal given by the steering input detector.”
Fig. 6- fig. 11 are illustrations of the display system
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori in view of Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Nagasawa to use a heads up display on a windshield because it reduces driving burden (Nagasawa para [0013] “In order to reduce the burden imposed on the driver, it is an object of the present invention is a visual guidance system configured to timely present a visual guide for notifying a driving direction and objects outside of a vehicle on the basis of a steering input signal.”)
Regarding claim 8, it recites A non-transitory storage medium having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Additionally Mori teaches A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that is executable by a computer to execute processing
{Para [0045] “The ITS-ECU 26 includes at least a central processing unit (CPU), a memory that serves as a temporary storage area, and a nonvolatile storage unit. A control program that causes the ITS-ECU 26 to execute the object notification processing is stored in the storage unit. The CPU of the ITS-ECU 26 reads the control program from the storage unit, loads the control program into the memory, and executes the loaded control program.”
}
Mori in view of Thompson does not teach displaying information on a windshield of the vehicle with a heads-up-displayed device at the position of the obstacle as viewed by a vehicle occupant
Additionally Nagasawa displaying information on a windshield of the vehicle with a heads-up-displayed device at the position of the obstacle as viewed by a vehicle occupant
{Abstract “A visual guidance system includes an image display to present an image overlaid on a windshield in front of a driver of a vehicle, a processor to output image information on a virtual line to display visual guidance to the image display, and a steering input detector to detect a steering input. The processor presents an attention attracting indication about an object outside of the vehicle in synchronization with the virtual line in such a manner that the virtual line extends from above the driver along a course of the vehicle seen within the windshield, and a pointing end of the virtual line is overlaid on a road surface on the course seen within the windshield. The processor outputs image information for changing the attention attracting indication to be less conspicuous than the virtual line in accordance with a steering input signal given by the steering input detector.”
Fig. 6- fig. 11 are illustrations of the display system
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori in view of Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Nagasawa to use a heads up display on a windshield because it reduces driving burden (Nagasawa para [0013] “In order to reduce the burden imposed on the driver, it is an object of the present invention is a visual guidance system configured to timely present a visual guide for notifying a driving direction and objects outside of a vehicle on the basis of a steering input signal.”)
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 20200180519 A1) in view of Thompson et al. (US 20220179223 A1, hereinafter known as Thompson), and Arai (US 20060049927 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Mori in view of Thompson teaches The display control device for a vehicle of claim 1,
Mori in view of Thompson does not teach, wherein the processor acquire an acceleration of the vehicle, wherein delete the display of the information in a case in which the acceleration of the vehicle, which has been acquired, has decreased by a predetermined amount or more
However, Arai teaches wherein the processor acquire an acceleration of the vehicle, wherein delete the display of the information in a case in which the acceleration of the vehicle, which has been acquired, has decreased by a predetermined amount or more
{Para [0070] “In this embodiment, the system provides a vehicle-stop mark (NB) as an alarm display for indicating stop at a crossing place, an intersection, and the like, although the system 100 of the first embodiment provides the navigation arrow-mark. Therefore, an alarm object is a stop position (PS) for a vehicle to stop next and an alarm-distance (D) is a distance between a present vehicle-position (PP) and the stop position.”
Where a crossing place or intersection can be considered a type of obstacle. However, it should be noted Mori already teaches an obstacle.
Para [0089] “Then, the steps S103 to S105 are repeated until the alarm-distance D becomes 20 m (D1 in the table of FIG. 7). When the alarm-distance D becomes 20 m, the multistage display control unit judges whether or not the brake-pedal is operated as shown in the step S109. If the pedal is operated, the value of i is set to zero as shown in the step S108, the stop mark is erased as shown in steps S103 and S111.”
Under BRI acquire an acceleration need not be a precise value but rather could be as simple as a Boolean of if deceleration is occurring or not as the claimed invention does not specify how or the format of the acceleration. Determining that the brake pedal is pressed can be considered a determination that the acceleration has decreased by more than zero.
}
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori in view of Thompson to incorporate the teachings of Arai to erase the visual indication due to decelerating the vehicle because the driver will be less distracted if less information is displayed para [0090] of Arai “Therefore, the driver can concentrate his or her attention upon confirming safety at surrounding circumstance of the stop position and driving operation of the steering, brake, and the like when the driver stops the vehicle, because of lack of continuously displaying the mark during the stop.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Zhu (US 10162651 B1) teaches abstract “A computer system may track the user's eye gaze on a display device over time using an eye tracker. When the computer system detects a risk associated with a graphical object and determines that the user's gaze is close to the graphical object, it may display a warning message indicating the risk. The computer system may display the warning message at a location that corresponds to the graphical object associated with the risk. Furthermore, when the computer system detects a risk and determines that the user's gaze is not at the graphical object that needs the user's immediate attention, it may display a warning message near the user's current gaze to notify the user. If desired, the warning message may be hidden based on the user's gaze, such as when the user moves his gaze away from the detected risk.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MATTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4296. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00.
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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/A.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights