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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on June 4, 2025. Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2024-113569, filed on July 16, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 4, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are 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.
As to claim 4, the limitation “a periphery of the ego vehicle image” at lines 2-3 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is the same “a periphery of the ego vehicle image” previously recited in claim 1 or different. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “the periphery of the ego vehicle image”.
As to claim 8, the limitation “a state of the action function” at line 3 is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear to the Examiner if this is the same “a state of the action function” previously recited in claim 1 or different. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the limitation to be “the state of the action function”.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mimura et al., US 2018/0345988 A1, hereinafter referred to as Mimura.
As to claim 1, Mimura teaches a vehicle display control device comprising:
a memory (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraph 75, Mimura), and
a processor coupled with the memory (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraph 75, Mimura), the processor being configured to:
display an ego vehicle image depicting an ego vehicle, and a function image indicating an action function of the ego vehicle, on a display region provided at a periphery of a driver’s seat of the ego vehicle (see at least FIG. 6 and paragraph 108. See also at least FIGS. 23-27 and paragraphs 187-218 regarding the image 608 is a figure indicating the acceleration of the subject vehicle M. The HMI control unit 120 displays a surroundings detection image 610A indicating that the driving support of the third degree is being executed in a surroundings detection information display area 600-7, Mimura), and
display the function image in a region at a periphery of the ego vehicle image so as to move based on a change to a state of the action function (see at least FIGS. 23-27 and paragraphs 187-218 regarding the image 608 is a figure indicating the acceleration of the subject vehicle M. The image 608 is displayed in front of the image indicating the subject vehicle M. In this case, the HMI control unit 120 may display the image 608 in a display mode in which an outside frame is given to the image 608 at a first timing before the subject vehicle M accelerates and display the image 608 in a display mode in which the inside of the outside frame of the image is colored at a second timing before the subject vehicle M accelerates. At the time of acceleration, the HMI control unit 120 may display an animation in which the image 608 moves in the progress direction of the subject vehicle. Conversely, at the time of a deceleration, the HMI control unit 120 may display an animation in which the image 608 moves toward the subject vehicle, Mimura).
As to claim 8, Mimura teaches wherein the processor is configured to display a mode of the function image changed, based on a state of the action function (see at least FIGS. 23-27 and paragraphs 187-218 regarding the HMI control unit 120 may display the image 608 in a display mode in which an outside frame is given to the image 608 at a first timing before the subject vehicle M accelerates and display the image 608 in a display mode in which the inside of the outside frame of the image is colored at a second timing before the subject vehicle M accelerates, Mimura).
As to claim 9, Examiner notes claim 9 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 10, Examiner notes claim 10 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al., US 2018/0345988 A1, hereinafter referred to as Mimura, in view of Kothari, US 2017/0013188 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kothari, respectively.
As to claim 2, Mimura does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which the action function has become enabled, display so as to move the function image from a first region that is a region where the function image is displayable fixed in a case in which the action function is unavailable, to a second region that is a region in a vicinity of the ego vehicle image.
However, such matter is taught by Kothari (see at least FIGS. 2A & 7A and paragraphs 218-233 regarding there would be an ‘Auto share/upload photos videos’ option 710 available on the ‘Settings’ screen. When a user clicks on the ‘Auto share/upload photos videos’ option, they would be taken to a new screen named ‘Auto share/upload settings’ 720. On the ‘Auto share/upload settings’ screen, if the user enables 724 the ‘Auto share/upload photos videos’ field 722, then the following two options would become visible. There would be video chat/conference functionality 1102 available on the sun visor system. A user would be able to change the camera view on the sun visor's LCD screen from ‘Polarized Front View’ to ‘See Me’ view, turn on or turn off the sun visor's LCD screen, start or stop video chat, change the sun visor mirror to traditional mirror view instead of the digital LCD screen, request to deploy or undeploy the sun visor system, request to turn on or off the sun visor's display screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Kothari which teaches wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which the action function has become enabled, display so as to move the function image from a first region that is a region where the function image is displayable fixed in a case in which the action function is unavailable, to a second region that is a region in a vicinity of the ego vehicle image with the system of Mimura as both systems are directed to a system and method for assisting a driver of a vehicle based on information regarding the vehicle’s surroundings, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of in a case in which the action function has become enabled, displaying so as to move the function image from a first region that is a region where the function image is displayable fixed in a case in which the action function is unavailable, to a second region that is a region in a vicinity of the ego vehicle image and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Mimura.
As to claim 3, Mimura teaches wherein the processor is configured to continue to display the function image in the second region while the action function is enabled (see at least paragraph 132 regarding the third screen IM3-X and the fourth screen IM4-X are continuously displayed in a state in which the driving support is executable and in a state in which the driving support is being executed. See also at least FIGS. 23-27 and paragraphs 187-218, Mimura).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al., US 2018/0345988 A1, hereinafter referred to as Mimura, in view of Kothari, US 2017/0013188 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kothari, and further in view of REN, US 2018/0107363 A1, hereinafter referred to as REN, respectively.
As to claim 4, Mimura, as modified by Kothari, does not explicitly teach displaying the function image looping at a periphery of the ego vehicle image.
However, such matter is taught by REN (see at least FIG. 6 and paragraphs 72-73 regarding three function icons, all surrounding the first icon, move on respective display orbits. Moving directions are all clockwise, and moving speeds are all a speed v).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of REN which teaches displaying the function image looping at a periphery of the ego vehicle image with the system of Mimura, as modified by Kothari, as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling information presented to a user through a user interface, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of displaying the function image looping at a periphery of the ego vehicle image and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Mimura as modified by Kothari.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al., US 2018/0345988 A1, hereinafter referred to as Mimura, in view of Kothari, US 2017/0013188 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kothari, and further in view of TOKUCHI, US 2019/0079703 A1, hereinafter referred to as TOKUCHI, respectively.
As to claim 5, Mimura, as modified by Kothari, does not explicitly teach displaying the function image so as to be sucked into the ego vehicle image.
However, such matter is taught by TOKUCHI (see at least FIG. 14 and paragraphs 154-155 regarding the controller 26 executes a presentation such that the device image 74 disappears from the position where the assistant image 50 is displayed. At this time, the controller 26 executes a display presentation as if the device image 74 is sucked into the assistant image 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of TOKUCHI which teaches displaying the function image so as to be sucked into the ego vehicle image with the system of Mimura, as modified by Kothari, as both systems are directed to a system and method for controlling user assistance based on obtained information, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of displaying the function image so as to be sucked into the ego vehicle image and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Mimura as modified by Kothari.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al., US 2018/0345988 A1, hereinafter referred to as Mimura, in view of Kothari, US 2017/0013188 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kothari, and further in view of CRICK et al., US 2024/0051391 A1, hereinafter referred to as CRICK, respectively.
As to claim 6, Mimura, as modified by Kothari, does not explicitly teach displaying the function image in a third region that is a region where the function image is displayable fixed in a case in which the action function is enabled.
However, such matter is taught by CRICK (see at least FIGS. 6E-6G and paragraphs 193-195 regarding computer system 600 engages cruise control and updates display of cruise control indicator 630A and textual cruise control speed 630B. Cruise control indicator 630A and textual cruise control speed 630B continue to be displayed at locations corresponding to the cruise control speed of 72 mph. Because cruise control is engaged, computer system 600 has changed an appearance of cruise control indicator 630A (e.g., darker color, such as green, different size, and/or different shape) and has changed an appearance of textual cruise control speed 630B (e.g., darker color and/or larger in size) to indicate that cruise control is engaged).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of CRICK which teaches displaying the function image in a third region that is a region where the function image is displayable fixed in a case in which the action function is enabled with the system of Mimura, as modified by Kothari, as both systems are directed to a system and method for providing assistance to an occupant of a vehicle, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of displaying the function image in a third region that is a region where the function image is displayable fixed in a case in which the action function is enabled and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Mimura as modified by Kothari.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al., US 2018/0345988 A1, hereinafter referred to as Mimura, in view of Kothari, US 2017/0013188 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kothari, and further in view of CHAUDHRI et al., WO 2006012343 A2, hereinafter referred to as CHAUDHRI, respectively.
As to claim 7, Mimura, as modified by Kothari, does not explicitly teach displaying the function image so as to move from the second region to the first region in a case in which the action function has become unavailable.
However, such matter is taught by CHAUDHRI (see at least paragraphs 111-112 regarding if a widget is deleted or removed (by dragging it or its label to trash icon 2801, for example), its label 2701 is removed from configuration bar 601. The user can close a widget by clicking on a close icon, or by dragging the widget back to configuration bar 601. Referring now to Fig. 29, there is shown a screen shot depicting a dashboard including close icon 2901 for closing widget 2500B. In one embodiment, icon 2901 is a rollover icon; it appears when the user has positioned the cursor over widget 2500B, and it disappears when the cursor is no longer positioned over widget 2500B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of CHAUDHRI which teaches displaying the function image so as to move from the second region to the first region in a case in which the action function has become unavailable with the system of Mimura, as modified by Kothari, as both systems are directed to a system and method for providing user assistance through a user interface, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of displaying the function image so as to move from the second region to the first region in a case in which the action function has become unavailable and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Mimura as modified by Kothari.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
TSUJINO et al. (US 20200398826 A1) regarding a system for controlling screen display of a display device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights