DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application and IDS filed 8/4/2025.
In the application Claims 1-5 are pending. Claim 1 is the independent claim.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 2024-213864 (JP), filed 12/6/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/4/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
6. The Drawings filed on 8/4/2025 have been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A display control device…” (machine). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]).
Claim 1. A display control device comprising:
a controller configured to display, on a display unit provided in front of a driver's seat of a vehicle [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment];
a meter image indicating an engine rotation speed of the vehicle, vehicle-speed information indicating a vehicle speed of the vehicle, and gear stage information in a fractional format in which a value of a current gear stage of the vehicle is a numerator and a value of a gear stage that indicates an upper limit set by a driver of the vehicle is a denominator [mental process] & [mathematical concept] & [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity]
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above constitute: a mathematical concept & a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claim describes output of a data-presentation step which is organizing and presenting information that a person could mentally track or a gauge could mechanically show via analog tachometer. Presenting a speed value is conventional data display to which a person could observe and report. Identifying the current gear stage and using it as a numerator is an act of categorization/data organization which is a mental step a person could perform by looking at the current gear and write it as the top number of a fraction. Furthermore, arranging two known numeric values into a numerator/denominator is an act of mathematical/symbolic representation that expresses a relationship between quantities as a fraction, thereby falling under mathematical concept and a mental process that can be performed via pen/paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “display unit provided in front of a driver's seat”. The Examiner submits that these limitations recite a generic controller performing the displaying in the field of automative instrument setting. Further specifying where the display is located which narrows the technological environment without changing the character of what’s being displayed. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a controller configured to display, on a display unit”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (controller & display). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2-4, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe organizing/representing the current gear limit relationship by adding a second visual representation, conditional, judgement-based rearrangement of displayed information and conditional data-suppression rule that displays less under a specified condition thereby falling under a mental process that can be performed via pen/paper. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claim 5, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describes geofencing-style conditional gate on top of the display steps to show gear information only when GPS location matches a predetermined criterion which involves collecting data, comparing it to a threshold/region and using the result to decide whether to display something which falls under [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
References Cited
9. The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 9,759,319 – discloses a tractor display showing a current gear stage and driver-settable upper and lower gear limits using separate on-screen indicators. However, it does not disclose displaying vehicle speed on the same screen, an engine-speed mater image as part of the gear-stage display, or a single fractional (numerator/denominator) display combining the current gear stage with the upper limit, instead presenting these values in separate display regions.
US7,710,252 – discloses a hybrid vehicle display that conditionally shows a tachometer or power meter based on shift position and simulates engine-speed changes during virtual shifting. However, it does not disclose displaying a discrete current gear stage, a driver-settable upper gear limit, vehicle speed, or a fractional display combining a current gear stage with an upper limit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights