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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 9-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,304,558 in view of Omori et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0344828).
Regarding claim 1, US Patent No. 12,304558 teaches parking assist method for performing autonomous driving of a vehicle on a basis of teacher driving by a driver, the parking assist method comprising: acquiring, from an imaging device installed in the vehicle, captured images obtained by imaging a periphery of the vehicle; recording a travel route of the vehicle in the teacher driving; generating a first overhead image of a first display target range viewed from above; generating a second overhead image of a second display target range viewed from above, the second display target range covering the travel route and a periphery of the travel route; and causing a display device to display the second overhead image at an angle at which a front direction of the vehicle at an end of the teacher driving is oriented toward a top of a screen of the display device in claims 1 and 9 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
US Patent No. 12,304558 does not teach the second display target range is wider than the first display target range.
Omori teaches the second display target range is wider than the first display target range (See Fig. 8, 9, 11, &12, [0013], and [0134]). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Omori in order to improve visibility for the driver.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of the current application corresponds to claim 2 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of the current application corresponds to claim 3 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 of the current application corresponds to claim 4 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 of the current application corresponds to claim 5 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of the current application corresponds to claim 6 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 of the current application corresponds to claim 7 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 9, US Patent No. 12,304558 teaches 9. A device for performing autonomous driving of a vehicle on a basis of teacher driving by a driver, the device comprising: a processor; and a memory including a program that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations, the operations including: acquiring, from an imaging device installed in the vehicle, captured images obtained by imaging a periphery of the vehicle; recording a travel route of the vehicle in the teacher driving; generating a first overhead image of a first display target range viewed from above; generating a second overhead image of a second display target range viewed from above, the second display target range covering the travel route and a periphery of the travel route; and causing a display device to display the second overhead image at an angle at which a front direction of the vehicle at an end of the teacher driving is oriented toward a top of a screen of the display device in claims 10 and 18.
US Patent No. 12,304558 does not teach the second display target range is wider than the first display target range.
Omori teaches the second display target range is wider than the first display target range (See Fig. 8, 9, 11, &12, [0013], and [0134]). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Omori in order to improve visibility for the driver.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of the current application corresponds to claim 11 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 of the current application corresponds to claim 12 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 of the current application corresponds to claim 13 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 of the current application corresponds to claim 14 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of the current application corresponds to claim 15 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 of the current application corresponds to claim 16 of US Patent No. 12,034,558.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 10, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,304,558 in view of Lida et al. (US Pat. No. 7,058,207).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, US Patent No. 12,304,558 does not teach the second overhead image includes an area displayed in black.
Lida teaches an overhead display that includes an area displayed in black (See Fig. 1 and Col. 6, lines 35-38). It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the black display so that it can be “easily seen by intuition.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights