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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action by Applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 6, 2025 and January 30, 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species D in the reply filed on August 17, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the species require a different field of search (e.g., employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 25, “the display controller is configured to” should read “the display controller is further configured to”.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“Acquisition unit…” in claim 8.
The acquisition unit is interpreted as a GNSS receiver, internal sensor, map database, and locator ECU as disclosed in paragraph 0053, and structural equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 8, line 5, the limitation "traffic congestion information of an other vehicle" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how traffic congestion can be of an other vehicle. Because “traffic congestion information” cannot be of an other vehicle, the limitation is considered indefinite and is rejected as such. For the purposes of examination, “traffic congestion information of an other vehicle” is interpreted to mean traffic congestion information related to an other vehicle.
In claim 8, line 24, the limitation “the other vehicle includes a plurality of other vehicles" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how a single vehicle can include more than one vehicle. Because “the other vehicle” is a singular item and “a plurality of other vehicles” includes multiple items, the limitation is considered indefinite and is rejected as such. For the purposes of examination, “the other vehicle” is interpreted to mean multiple vehicles.
In claim 8, line 28, the limitation "a display" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the display previously recited on line 3, the displaying of the plurality of other vehicles as a cluster on line 26, or a new display. Because it is unclear which display is being referred to, the limitation is considered indefinite and is rejected as such. For the purposes of examination, “a display” is interpreted to be referring to “displaying the plurality of other vehicles as a cluster during the traffic congestion”.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boehringer (US 2012/0277947) in view of Hirotaka (JP 2017182586).
Regarding claim 8, Boehringer discloses a vehicle display apparatus comprising:
a display configured to display traveling information of a vehicle (Boehringer, [0026] regarding a traffic jam assistance display);
a device configured to acquire…traffic congestion information of an other vehicle that travels in a periphery of the vehicle (Boehringer, [0016] regarding detection devices for detecting a present traffic situation & [0014] regarding the traffic situation being a traffic jam); and
a display controller configured to
detect a traffic congestion resolved possibility from the position information and the traffic congestion information (Boehringer, [0033] regarding warning the driver of a resolution of the traffic jam. In order to warn the driver of the resolution, the resolution must first be detected using the vehicle’s location and the detection devices.), and
upon detecting the traffic congestion resolved possibility, display, on the display, transition information by using an image of at least one of a traveling road, the other vehicle, or the vehicle, until a predetermined autonomous driving resolved condition of the vehicle during a traffic congestion is satisfied (Boehringer, [0033] regarding warning the driver of a resolution of the traffic jam & Fig. 3 regarding showing the vehicle and other vehicles in the lane),
wherein
transition information is related to transition from second autonomous driving to first autonomous driving,
the second autonomous driving does not require a periphery monitoring duty and is autonomous driving at an autonomous driving level 3 or higher,
the first autonomous driving requires manual driving or the periphery monitoring duty and is autonomous driving at an autonomous driving level 2 or lower (Boehringer, [0034] regarding the cause for changing between free driving (i.e., manual) and autonomous driving being a detected traffic jam (i.e., autonomous driving during traffic and free/manual driving during no traffic)),
when the traffic congestion is resolved and a new traffic congestion different from the resolved traffic congestion occurs, the display controller displays that the new traffic congestion is different from the resolved traffic congestion (Boehringer, [0006] regarding detecting a present traffic situation & [0014] regarding the traffic situation being a traffic jam. After detecting a present traffic jam and it being resolved the process would be repeated for a new detection of a traffic jam.)
the other vehicle includes a plurality of other vehicles, and
the display controller is configured to…
display individually showing the plurality of other vehicle, as the transition information when the traffic congestion is resolved (Boehringer, [0033] regarding warning the driver of a resolution of the traffic jam & Fig. 3 regarding showing the vehicle and other vehicles individually in the lane).
Boehringer does not explicitly disclose an acquisition unit configured to acquire position information of the vehicle…; and…
the display controller configured to
display the plurality of other vehicles as a cluster during the traffic congestion….
Hirotaka teaches an acquisition unit configured to acquire position information of the vehicle (Hirotaka, [0033] regarding a navigation device including a GPS receiver, a pre-prepared map, and a gyro sensor & [0018] regarding the navigation device having a CPU)…; and…
the display controller is configured to
display the plurality of other vehicles as a cluster during the traffic congestion (Hirotaka, [0042-0043] regarding displaying grouped vehicles that have the same relative speed, are close in relative distance, and are traveling adjacent to each other in the same lane)….
Boehringer and Hirotaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle displays. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Boehringer to incorporate grouping vehicles that have the same speed and are close together, as taught by Hirotaka, to reduce the user’s monitoring burden when multiple vehicles are driving (Hirotaka, [0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights