DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 19/192,576 filed on April 29, 2025 in which claims 1-5 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending, of which claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1); and claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 29, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the operation function that is disabled” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: the “display control unit” and “function control unit” in claims 1-5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim includes the limitation “a display region that is provided in a vicinity of a driver's seat of the own vehicle.” The term “vicinity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, a display region of a driver who is 7’1” (215.9 cm) would be able to be a much greater distance away than a display region for a driver who is 4’11” (149.86 cm). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to judge whether a display region was within the “vicinity” of the driver’s seat, rendering this claim indefinite.
In order to overcome this rejection, the examiner recommends replacing “vicinity” with a non-relative term, such as “within a predefined distance” or similar.
Regarding claim 2, this claim includes the limitation “the display control unit displays the function image corresponding to the operation function that is disabled, in a first region that is a region in which display is performable when the operation function is disabled.” This appears to state that it disabled function is in a region in which the function can be performed, which is contradictory.
Additionally, this claim includes the limitation “when the function image is moved from the first region to a second region that is a region nearby the own vehicle image, the function control unit enables the operation function corresponding to the function image that is moved.” The term “nearby” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearby” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the function image was moved to a second region that “is a region nearby” because that person would be unaware how close it must be to constitute being “nearby.” Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
In order to overcome the rejection for the use of “nearby,” the examiner recommends replacing “nearby” with a non-relative term, such as “within a predefined distance” or similar.
Regarding claim 3, this claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. It appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with idiomatic errors. Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, this claim refers to a “third region.” However, neither this claim nor its parent claim refer to a first or second region. Thus, the examiner cannot determine the metes and bounds of this limitation because the examiner cannot determine if a first and second, unused regions are required to be present on the display. Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
Regarding claims 2-5, these claims depend from claim 1 and, therefore, inherit the rejection of that claim.
Regarding claims 1-5, the claim limitations of the “display control unit” and “function control unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
When a claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for a computer implemented means-plus-function claim, the specification must disclose the specific algorithm required to transform the general-purpose computing equipment into the required special purpose computer. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
The examiner could not find any specific structure or specific algorithm in the present specification, nor has Applicant pointed to such structure or algorithm. At most, the present specification states that these are “realized by CPU 30 of ECU 28.” (Spec. ¶ 25). However, this is merely reciting the general purpose computing equipment without reciting the specific algorithm required to transform the units into a special purpose computer. In other words, the disclosed CPU is merely a “black box recitation,” which the Federal Circuit has long held to be insufficient for support under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See MPEP § 2181(I)(A).
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsujino et al., US Publication 2020/0398826 (hereinafter Tsujino).
Regarding claim 1, Tsujino discloses a vehicle display control device comprising “a display control unit that displays an own vehicle image depicting an own vehicle and a function image indicating an operation function of the own vehicle” (Tsujino ¶ 11 and Fig. 10A) as shown in annotated Fig. 10a below:
PNG
media_image1.png
262
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Tsujino discloses “on a display region that is provided in a vicinity of a driver's seat of the own vehicle” (Tsujino ¶ 59) where the display may be a touch screen configured to receive operations from the occupant, meaning that it is within the vicinity of the driver’s seat or the driver would be unable to touch it. Further, Tsujino discloses that the display control unit “also causes a display of the function image to move in response to an operation that is performed on the function image” (Tsujino ¶ 121) where selection of the parking function causes the associated “thick black line” to shift to a different position. Finally, Tsujino discloses “a function control unit that controls a state of the operation function corresponding to the function image that is operated, based on a positional relation between the own vehicle image and the function image” (Tsujino ¶ 62) where the vehicle is moved autonomously in response to activating the park assist feature. This is based on the positional relation between the own vehicle image and the function image because only available parking spaces are displayed with function images.
Regarding claim 3, Tsujino discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tsujino discloses “when a predetermined condition for changing the state of the operation function is not satisfied, the function control unit sets the state of the operation function to a state before changing” (Tsujino ¶ 131) where when the vehicle is moving at a speed higher than a predetermined value (i.e., a condition for changing the state of the operation function is not satisfied), the ability to select a parking position is disabled (i.e., set to a state before changing). Further, Tsujino discloses “the display control unit displays warning information indicating that the operation function is in the state before changing” (Tsujino ¶ 133 and Fig. 13B) by displaying warning information indicating that parking positions cannot be detected.
Regarding claim 5, Tsujino discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tsujino discloses “wherein the display control unit displays a list of states of one or a plurality of the operation function, based on an operation that is performed on a predetermined region in surroundings of the own vehicle image” (Tsujino ¶ 109 and Fig. 7A) where the display displays a list of possible parking locations, which are those parking spaces within the range of the external environment sensors (i.e., a predetermined region surrounding the own vehicle image).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujino in view of Kothari, US Publication 2017/0013188.
Regarding claim 2, Tsujino discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tsujino does not appear to explicitly disclose “the display control unit displays the function image corresponding to the operation function that is disabled, in a first region that is a region in which display is performable when the operation function is disabled; and when the function image is moved from the first region to a second region that is a region nearby the own vehicle image, the function control unit enables the operation function corresponding to the function image that is moved.”
However, Kothari discloses an autonomous vehicle including a display control unit that displays a vehicle image depicting an own vehicle (Kothari Fig. 2A) and wherein “the display control unit displays the function image corresponding to the operation function that is disabled, in a first region that is a region in which display is performable when the operation function is disabled” (Kothari ¶ 221 and Fig. 7A) where the disabled functions are displayed in a settings window (i.e., a first region). Additionally, Kothari discloses “when the function image is moved from the first region to a second region that is a region nearby the own vehicle image, the function control unit enables the operation function corresponding to the function image that is moved” (Kothari ¶¶ 227, 233) by giving an example that once the video chat is enabled, the function image appears on the display (Kothari ¶ 227) and further disclosing that this may be on the screen with the front view (i.e., nearby the own vehicle image, Kothari ¶ 233).
Tsujino and Kothari are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of autonomous vehicles with graphical user interfaces capable of displaying the own vehicle and a function image.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tsujino and Kothari before him or her to modify the interface of Tsujino to include the second region of Kothari.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that such a combination would allow the display of Tsujino to include more functions other than parking assist, which would render the display more useful to both the driver and passengers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujino in view of Hori et al., US Publication 2023/0091049 (hereinafter Hori).
Regarding claim 4, Tsujino discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Tsujino does not appear to explicitly disclose “the display control unit displays the function image corresponding to the operation function that is enabled, in a third region that is a region in which display is performable when the operation function is enabled; and when the function image is moved from the third region, the function control unit disables the operation function corresponding to the function image that is moved.”
However, Hori discloses a vehicle with a display control unit, wherein “the display control unit displays the function image corresponding to the operation function that is enabled, in a third region that is a region in which display is performable when the operation function is enabled; and when the function image is moved from the third region, the function control unit disables the operation function corresponding to the function image that is moved” (Hori ¶78 and Fig. 7) where functions, such as those shown in Fig. 6, are displayed in display V2 and are accessible, but when a user performs a right sided switch-over, those functions are removed from the display and no longer accessible.
Tsujino and Hori are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle display control units.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tsujino and Hori before him or her to modify the display of Tsujino to include the ability to toggle functions on and off of Hori.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have recognized that such a combination would allow the display of Tsujino to include more functions other than parking assist, which would render the display more useful to both the driver and passengers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Choi et al., US Publication 2018/0226077, System and method for allowing a user to disable functions on a vehicle touch screen by moving those functions to different regions of the display.
Tsujino et al., US Publication 2020/0092521, System and method for controlling autonomous parking including an image of an own vehicle.
Iwakiri et al., JP 2004-291867, System and method for controlling autonomous parking including an image of an own vehicle.
Nishii et al., EP 4 163 860, System and method for using a touch screen interface to control a vehicle.
Hu et al., CN 115248706, System and method for using a touch screen interface to control a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights