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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 9 and 10 are entered and considered by examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0079540; already of record) in view of Popovic (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0268262).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon discloses a display control device (170, 200 and 300) including a processor (270 and 370), (fig. 7, [0096 and 0154]), the processor causing a display unit (251) to display (fig. 7, [0101 and 0111]), based on detection information (i.e. object information) detectable by a vehicle (i.e. object detection unit 300 for sensing an object positioned outside the vehicle 100) (fig. 7, [0054 and 0116]), a vehicle image (100) representing the vehicle as viewed from a virtual viewpoint (i.e. fig. 5 shows a virtual representation of the vehicle 100) and causing the display unit to display a specific object image (i.e. pedestrian OB12 and two-wheeler OB13), representing a specific object that is present in a vicinity of the vehicle (i.e. pedestrian OB12 and two-wheeler OB13 may be positioned within a certain distance from the vehicle 100) (fig. 5, [0118 and 0121-0122]), in a predetermined color simulating a characteristic color derived from an outward appearance of the specific object (i.e. the object information may be information about a shape, position, size, color, and the like of the object), (fig. 5, [0054]).
However, Yoon does not mention wherein the processor derives the characteristic color based on color information included in the detection information, selects, as the predetermined color, from among plural colors prepared beforehand.
In a similar field of endeavor, Popovic teaches wherein the processor (206) derives the characteristic color based on color information (i.e. stored information) included in the detection information (i.e. sensed information), selects, as the predetermined color (i.e. create images that approximate the size, geometry, color or other features), from among plural colors prepared beforehand, a color whose color difference from the characteristic color is smallest (i.e. creating images that approximate the color is considered the color whose color difference is smallest), and causes one part of the specific object image (i.e. generate an image having the approximate shape of that particular vehicle) corresponding to a part of the specific object (vehicle) from which the characteristic color is derived to be displayed in the selected predetermined color (i.e. the virtual image 350 is projected by projection unit 340 onto combiner 330), (i.e. an image generating unit can use sensed information about the real world objects to create images that approximate the size, geometry, color, or other features of those objects in order to produce images that are clearly representative of the real world objects. In some cases, the image generating unit could also utilize stored information about various real world objects to generate images. For example, an image generating unit could retrieve stored information about a particular make and model of a vehicle to generate an image having the approximate shape and size of that particular vehicle), (figs. 2-3, [0059-0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoon discloses wherein the specific object (OB12 and OB13) is an object having a predetermined attribute (i.e. attributes such as pedestrian OB12 or two-wheeler OB13), (fig. 5, [0121-0122]).
Regarding claim 5, Yoon discloses wherein the processor (270 and 370) causes the display unit (251) to display the specific object image in a mode (i.e. autonomous mode may be based on information, data or a signal generated in a travelling system 710) according to the attribute that the specific object (OB12 and OB13) has, (figs. 5 and 7, [0071, 0096 and 0154]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoon discloses wherein, when the processor (270 and 370) causes the display unit (251) to display, based on the detection information (object information) and together with the specific object image (OB12 and OB13), another object image (OB14) representing another object different from the specific object, the processor causes the display unit to display the other object image (OB14) in a predetermined mode (autonomous mode), (figs. 5 and 7, [0071, 0096 and 0121-0123]).
Regarding claim 7, Yoon discloses wherein the display unit (251) is a meter display provided on a vehicle front side of a driver's seat of the vehicle (i.e. fig. 3 shows display unit 251a is an instrument panel having a meter in front of the driver’s seat), [0108].
Regarding claim 9, please refer to claim 1 for details.
Regarding claim 10, please refer to claim 1 for details.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Popovic and in view of Tsuchiya et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0086000; already of record).
Regarding claim 2, Yoon in view of Popovic discloses everything as specified above in claim 1. However, Yoon in view of Popovic does not mention display parts other than the one part in a predetermined mode.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tsuchiya teaches wherein the processor (5) causes the display unit (6) to display one part of the specific object image in the predetermined color and display parts other than the one part in a predetermined mode (i.e. display the pedestrian in red color and display the other part such as the two-wheeled vehicle in yellow color), (figs. 1 and 4, [0078 and 0099-0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoon in view of Popovic, by specifically providing the different color, as taught by Tsuchiya, for the purpose of improved user friendly characteristic of the information display apparatus, [0008].
Regarding claim 8, Tsuchiya discloses wherein the processor (5) causes the display unit (6) to display, in the predetermined color (red), a specific object image (pedestrian) representing an object whose cautionary level is highest among specific objects (i.e. fig. 4 shows the pedestrian is colored RED, which has the highest attention to be paid among the other objects such as the yellow two-wheeled and the blue car), (figs. 1 and 4, [0078 and 0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoon in view of Popovic, by specifically providing the different color, as taught by Tsuchiya, for the purpose of improved user friendly characteristic of the information display apparatus, [0008].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 11, none of the prior art of record teaches alone or in combination the limitation “wherein the specific object is a person, the one part is a part corresponding to an upper body of the person, and the processor causes the one part of the specific object image to be displayed in the selected predetermined color and parts other than the one part to be displayed in a predetermined mode.”
Claims 12-13 are similar to claim 11 and are allowed for the reason mentioned above in claim 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG D PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am-5pm 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, Chanh D Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/LONG D PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights