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 .
1. This action is responsive to application filed May 21, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “recognize an object around a vehicle; specify the object present within a predetermined distance threshold around the vehicle as a display target object; and set the distance threshold when a predetermined vehicle position condition or a predetermined time condition related to a predetermined object for early display is satisfied to be greater than the distance threshold when the vehicle position condition and the time condition are not satisfied.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “display control apparatus”, “object recognition unit”, “display target specification unit” and “display control unit” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “recognize”, “specify”, and “set” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to mentally determine a pedestrian around the vehicle and determine the pedestrian is too close to a vehicle and then set a minimum separation distance.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements- “display control apparatus”, “object recognition unit”, “display target specification unit” and “display control unit” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of determining a distance and setting a distance) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claim 1 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the additional element of display the display target object on a display unit, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses merely transmitting or generating information (e.g., transmitting/outputting a signal). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 1-5 are directed to an abstract idea.
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.
2. 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 limitations are: object recognition unit, display target specification unit and display control unit in claim 1.
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 § 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 (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 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.
4. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seder et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0253492 (referred to hereafter as Seder).
As to claim 1, Seder teaches a display control apparatus comprising:
an object recognition unit configured to recognize an object around a vehicle based on a detection result of an external sensor mounted on the vehicle (see para. 164);
a display target specification unit configured to specify the object present within a predetermined distance threshold around the vehicle as a display target object; and a display control unit configured to display the display target object on a display unit (see para. 164 and 196),
wherein the display target specification unit sets the distance threshold when a predetermined vehicle position condition or a predetermined time condition related to a predetermined object for early display is satisfied to be greater than the distance threshold when the vehicle position condition and the time condition are not satisfied (see para. 196 and 198).
As to claim 2, Seder teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the display target specification unit sets the distance threshold according to a type of the object and increases the distance threshold when the vehicle position condition or the time condition is satisfied for each type of the object (see para. 164 and 198).
As to claim 3, Seder teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the object recognition unit recognizes an obstacle hindering a movement of the object around the vehicle based on the detection result of the external sensor, and the display target specification unit does not increase the distance threshold in a direction in which the obstacle is present, even if the vehicle position condition or the time condition is satisfied (see para. 164, 196 and 198).
As to claim 4, Seder teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the object for early display is a child among pedestrians, and the vehicle position condition is satisfied when a vehicle position of the vehicle is included in a school zone (see para. 164).
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.
5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seder in view of Takhirov, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0234751.
As to claim 5, Seder teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the object for early display is a child among pedestrians (see para. 164). Seder does not explicitly teach the time condition is satisfied when a current time falls within a predetermined school commute time period.
However, Takhirov teaches increasing probability of collision if a time condition is satisfied when a current time falls within a predetermined school commute time period (see para. 32).
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the at the effective filling data of the application to increase probability of collision if a time condition is satisfied when a current time falls within a predetermined school commute time period in Seder as taught by Takhirov. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Takhirov that doing so would minimize the probability of collision.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights