Patent Application 18330516 - VEHICLE DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE VEHICLE DISPLAY - Rejection
Patent Application 18330516 - VEHICLE DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE VEHICLE DISPLAY
Title: VEHICLE DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE, VEHICLE DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD, RECORDING MEDIUM RECORDED WITH VEHICLE DISPLAY CONTROL PROGRAM, AND VEHICLE
Application Information
- Invention Title: VEHICLE DISPLAY CONTROL DEVICE, VEHICLE DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD, RECORDING MEDIUM RECORDED WITH VEHICLE DISPLAY CONTROL PROGRAM, AND VEHICLE
- Application Number: 18330516
- Submission Date: 2025-05-21T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2023-06-07T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2023-06-07T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 701
- National Sub-Class: 036000
- Examiner Employee Number: 82748
- Art Unit: 3665
- Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
Office Action Text
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
2. Claims 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musuya (WIPO Publication # WO 2022/024962) in view of Ohta (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0178722).
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, Musuya discloses a vehicle display control device comprising a memory and a processor connected to the memory (title, figures, etc), wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire position information of a detection object ahead of a vehicle (figs 1-2, P68, etc: detection object is vehicle FC2, position information implicit from displayed image of vehicle FC2 with superimposed warning mark CU2);
generate an image indicating a direction from the vehicle toward the detection object based on the acquired position information of the detection object (figs 1-2, P62, etc: location of warning mark CU2 in displayed image indicates the direction from the vehicle toward the detection object FC2); and
when the generated image is displayed on a display area in front of a driver's seat of the vehicle, cause display of the image overlaid on a forward scene of the vehicle (figs 1-2, P62, etc) while limiting display of the image in a specific region inside the display area (figs 1, 3-5, 7-9, P57, 65, 68, 114, etc).
Musuya does not explicitly disclose acquiring position information of the detection object.
In the same field of endeavor, Ohta discloses acquiring position information of a detection object (P42-44, etc).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Musuya to acquire position information of the detection object, as suggested by Musuya and/or taught by Ohta, in order to improve safety by more accurately processing obstacle information for warning or avoidance, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Musuya fails to discloses that, in a case in which an entropy of information displayed in the specific region would be a specific entropy or greater, the processor is configured to limit display of the image in the specific region such that the entropy of information displayed in the specific region becomes less than the specific entropy.
However, this feature was well known in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention. See at least Kojima et al. (JP # 2021060808) P68-69, 12.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Musuya to do so, as well known in the art, in order to improve safety by avoiding overwhelming the driver with unnecessary information, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Musuya further discloses that the specific region is a region of a reference height or higher inside the display area as seen by a vehicle driver (figs 1, 3-5, 7-9, P57, 81, 90, 65, 68, 114, etc).
Regarding claim 4, Musuya further discloses that the image extends from a lower portion of the display area toward the detection object as seen by the vehicle driver; and the processor is configured to: cause display of the image from the lower portion of the display area as far as a location corresponding to the detection object in a case in which a distance between the vehicle and the detection object is not greater than a reference distance set according to the reference height, and cause display of the image from the lower portion of the display area as far as a location corresponding to the reference height in a case in which the distance between the vehicle and the detection object exceeds the reference distance set according to the reference height (figs 1, 3-4, 6-13, P57, 75, etc).
Regarding claim 5, Musuya in view of Ohta further discloses that the image is configured including a plurality of arrow shapes arranged along a straight line connecting a lower center of the display area to the detection object as seen by a vehicle driver (figs 1: arrows; in view of Ohta fig 8, P75-76, 24, etc: arcs equivalent to arrows).
Regarding claim 6, Musuya further discloses a vehicle comprising: the vehicle display control device of claim 1; and a head-up display that displays the image according to a control signal output from the vehicle display control device (figs 1, P57-58, etc).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. 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, Erin Bishop can be reached at (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 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.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
May 17, 2025
