DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the initial filing dated May 30, 2025.
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 Status
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
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 limitations are:
“a route acquisition unit configured to acquire a traveling route”,
“a user determination unit configured to determine whether the driving support function is available”,
“a use information acquisition unit configured to acquire either a use history… or a degree of understanding”, and
“a presentation control unit configured to… present the support information” in claim 1 and
“a driver identification unit configured to identify the driver” in claim 5.
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.
Specifically, each of the cited claim limitations are interpreted as an electronic control unit (ECU) based on paragraph [0022] of the specification which states “the presentation ECU 10 includes a route acquisition unit 11, a use determination unit 12, a driver identification unit 13, a use information acquisition unit 14, and a presentation control unit 15.”
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuwahara (US PG Pub #2023/0192109).
As to claim 1, Kuwahara teaches a support information presentation apparatus that presents support information to a driver of a vehicle, the support information including a driving support function available in the vehicle and a section in which the driving support function is available (Paragraph [0030] teaches an information processing apparatus; Paragraphs [0081] and [0126] teach presenting information to the user via a display; Paragraph [0147] teaches notifying the user that operating conditions for a driving support function are satisfied), comprising:
a route acquisition unit configured to acquire a traveling route on which the vehicle is scheduled to travel (Paragraph [0048] teaches an in-vehicle device such as a navigation device; Paragraphs [0050]-[0052] teach an in-vehicle device having a processor, main storage device, and an auxiliary storage device and is configured to include a control unit such as a CPU; Paragraphs [0073] and [0077] teach the in-vehicle device functions to provide route navigation based on stored map data);
a use determination unit configured to determine whether the driving support function is available on the traveling route (Paragraphs [0050]-[0052] teach an in-vehicle device having a processor, main storage device, and an auxiliary storage device and is configured to include a control unit such as a CPU; Paragraph [0053]-[0054] teach the control unit includes a determination unit which determines whether or not operating conditions for each of a plurality of driving support functions are established);
a use information acquisition unit configured to acquire either a use history by the driver of the driving support function determined to be available (Paragraphs [0050]-[0052] teach an in-vehicle device having a processor, main storage device, and an auxiliary storage device and is configured to include a control unit such as a CPU; Paragraphs [0160]-[0162] teach the determination unit determines whether or not the corresponding driving support function is being used to temporarily store the result in association with a use flag indicating whether or not the corresponding drive support function has been used) or a degree of understanding of the driver regarding the driving support function determined to be available (Paragraphs [0050]-[0052] teach an in-vehicle device having a processor, main storage device, and an auxiliary storage device and is configured to include a control unit such as a CPU; Paragraph [0169] teaches the driver is familiar with how to use a certain driving support function and does not need to be taught in order to exclude the function from teaching); and
a presentation control unit configured to, when it is determined by the use determination unit that the driving support function is available, present the support information regarding the driving support function determined to be available (Paragraphs [0050]-[0052] teach an in-vehicle device having a processor, main storage device, and an auxiliary storage device and is configured to include a control unit such as a CPU; Paragraph [0035] teaches generating a map in which one or more points are mapped to a travel route to visually inform the user at what points the driving support function was available; Paragraph [0055] teaches when operating conditions for a predetermined driving support function are established, notifying the driver via a display);
wherein, even if it is determined that the driving support function is available, the presentation control unit does not present the support information when the number of uses of the driving support function, which is derived from the use history, is greater than or equal to a predetermined usage number threshold value (Paragraph [0164] teaches mapping driving support functions to the route map only for the functions not used during travel by omitting points at which a flag is set) or when the degree of understanding of the driving support function is greater than or equal to a predetermined understanding threshold value (Paragraph [0169] teaches the driver is familiar with how to use a certain driving support function and does not need to be taught in order to exclude the function from teaching).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara (US PG Pub #2023/0192109) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayakawa et al. (Hayakawa; US PG Pub #2020/0339147).
As to claim 2, depending from the support information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, Kuwahara does not explicitly teach wherein, when presenting the support information, the presentation control unit includes advantages of the available driving support function in the support information.
In the field of a vehicle display apparatus, Hayakawa teaches wherein, when presenting the support information, the presentation control unit includes advantages of the available driving support function in the support information (Paragraph [0172] teaches displaying content including a reason for change in driving mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kuwahara with the display of Hayakawa because displaying a reason yields the predictable result of better informing the driver of the scenario to increase safe driving.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara (US PG Pub #2023/0192109) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Subaru (JP-2024090768; translation provided).
As to claim 3, depending from the support information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, Kuwahara does not explicitly teach wherein, when presenting the support information, the presentation control unit changes a manner of presentation in accordance with at least one of the number of uses or the degree of understanding.
In the field of a vehicle display apparatus, Subaru teaches wherein, when presenting the support information, the presentation control unit changes a manner of presentation in accordance with at least one of the number of uses or the degree of understanding (Paragraphs [0097]-[0098] teach selecting and prioritizing information to display based on the driver’s skill level). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kuwahara with the display of Subaru because selecting output data based on a driver’s skill level or understanding of a target driving operation makes it easier to select appropriate information for intrinsic motivation of the driver (Paragraph [0098]).
As to claim 5, depending from the support information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, Kuwahara does not explicitly teach the apparatus further comprising a driver identification unit configured to identify the driver who rides in the vehicle based on a face image captured of the driver's face,
wherein the use history and the degree of understanding are defined for each driver, and
wherein the use information acquisition unit acquires the use history or the degree of understanding corresponding to the driver identified by the driver identification unit.
In the field of vehicular information processing devices, Subaru teaches the apparatus further comprising a driver identification unit configured to identify the driver who rides in the vehicle based on a face image captured of the driver's face (Paragraph [0057] teaches a presentation information setting unit identifying the driver based on a facial image of the driver),
wherein the use history and the degree of understanding are defined for each driver (Paragraph [0045] teaches data relating to driver skill including the number of years since obtaining a license and driving frequency and the driver answering questions to a questionnaire and storing the results), and
wherein the use information acquisition unit acquires the use history or the degree of understanding corresponding to the driver identified by the driver identification unit (Paragraph [0057] teaches a presentation information setting unit identifying the driver based on a facial image of the driver to search for driver skill level information). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Kuwahara with the facial imaging of Subaru because selecting output data based on a driver’s skill level or understanding of a target driving operation makes it easier to select appropriate information for intrinsic motivation of the driver (Paragraph [0098]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara (US PG Pub #2023/0192109) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ebina (US PG Pub #2017/0021837).
As to claim 4, depending from the support information presentation apparatus according to claim 1, Kuwahara does not explicitly teach wherein, when presenting the support information, the presentation control unit further presents, as an illustration, an operation portion among operation portions that a driver operates for driving operation of the vehicle, the operation portion being supported by the available driving support function.
In the field of a vehicle information presenting apparatus, Ebina teaches wherein, when presenting the support information, the presentation control unit further presents, as an illustration, an operation portion among operation portions that a driver operates for driving operation of the vehicle, the operation portion being supported by the available driving support function (Paragraph [0100] teaches displaying an image of a steering wheel or pedal so the driver knows which component of the vehicle to operate when transitioning driving modes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Kuwahara with the display of Ebina because this allows for a smooth transition between driving modes (Paragraph [0100]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishijima et al. (US PG Pub #2018/0033327) teach displaying an indication of highway conditions, weather conditions, and traffic conditions, along with requesting whether to turn on adaptive controls (Paragraph [0105]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights