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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are persuasive only in part.
First, the obviousness-type (nonstatutory) double patenting rejection is withdrawn, being overcome by applicant’s Terminal Disclaimer.
Second, the previous objection to the specification is overcome by applicant’s claim amendments, but new objections are made herein below based on the claim amendments.
Third, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), description requirement and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are overcome by applicant’s claim amendments, but new rejections in these respects are made herein below based on the claim amendments.
Fourth, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant argues:
However, such techniques of Yaqub, do not teach or suggest to "generate a distortion function based on an indicator including a location of an object in relation to a vehicle and based on a location of the vehicle, wherein the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
For example, Yaqub's description that the virtual signage "appearing to approach closer gradually from the corner of the windshield as the driver approaches towards a location," fails to contemplate any "indicator including a location of an object in relation to a vehicle," where "the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Therefore, Yaqub does not teach or suggest the aforementioned features of amended independent claim 1.
However, such techniques of Koren, do not teach or suggest to "generate a distortion function based on an indicator including a location of an object in relation to a vehicle and based on a location of the vehicle, wherein the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
For example, Koren's description that a camera "captures in real time the landscape and provides the information to the system for further image processing," fails to contemplate any "indicator including a location of an object in relation to a vehicle," where "the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator," as recited in amended independent claim 1. Therefore, Koren does not teach or suggest the aforementioned features of amended independent claim 1.
While the examiner agrees that neither Yaqub et al. (‘208) nor Koren (‘001) reveal the newly claimed limitation related to the digital signature, he now uses Hori et al. (2013/0156017), cited by applicant on 8 July 2022, to show this limitation.
Regarding the “indicator including a location of an object in relation to a vehicle”, the third piece of the triple in Yaqub et al. (‘208) is the geolocation of the sign (object) (paragraph [0023]), and the GPS receiver (not shown) in the vehicle also provides a “geolocation position in real time” of the vehicle, so the geolocation of the sign is implicitly or obviously “in relation to” the geolocation of the “vehicle”. For example, see paragraph [0028[] in Yaqub et al. (‘208), “The receiver 130 employs the third piece of data to identify the appropriate geolocation for the applicable signage to be displayed so that once the vehicle's current location equals the identified location, the signage can be displayed by the receiver 130.” See also paragraphs [0031] and [0042] to [0044] in Yaqub et al. (‘208). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not convincing in this respect.
Finally, because the applicant has deleted from the claim the improvement that was persuasively argued previously in order to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101[1], the examiner re-institutes a rejection under 35 U.S.C 101, as detailed below.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are only persuasive in part.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o)2. Correction of the following is required: antecedent basis should be provided in the specification for the following new claim terminology, without adding new matter, so the meaning of the new claim terminology may be ascertainable by reference to the description: “the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator” and “log[] performance data of the vehicle while the sprite is active” in the independent claims, where the transmitter in the independent claims is apparently a different claim element from the “a wireless communication device”, as introduced in the dependent claims, and from which the indicator is recited as being received in the dependent claims. Here, the examiner notes that while a “transmitter that includes a RIoT core processing module” is described in the specification, the function of generating the signature or transmitting the indicator is not apparently (?) ascribed to this transmitter. See also MPEP 2111.01, V., flowchart (top block).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1 to 5, 7 to 13, 15 to 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 17, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s)3, or by what steps or procedure, or even an indication that, he i) provided or utilized in any device, medium, or method, the now claimed “indicator” (which, as the term is used in the specification is apparently different from the “indicator packet”, with the “indicator” apparently being a portion of the indicator packet, being contained in the payload/payload portion thereof) that “includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator” or ii) generated, via the transmitter, the digital signature that was included in the indicator. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope4 of the now claimed invention, but has only now described a desired result.
In this respect, the first packet 502A, which describes the data transmitted from a roadway to a vehicle, in shown in FIG. 5 (reproduced below/on the next page by the examiner) and is described e.g., at published paragraph [0084] of the published specification, with published paragraphs [0031] to [0034] and [0046] also describing an “indicator packet” or “packet” and its payload (510), and indicator(s) [or indication(s)] contained therein which are associated with locations:
PNG
media_image1.png
388
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0031] In step 106, the method receives an indicator packet from the roadway.
[0032] In the illustrated embodiment, an indicator packet refers to data that is to be displayed to the operator of the vehicle. An indicator packet is, in general, associated with an indication. An indication comprises objects such as road signs, traffic lights, road conditions, construction notices, and generally any object or event visible on a roadway or otherwise representable by a sign or other visual indicator.
[0033] Each indication is associated with a location. For example, a traffic light indicator is associated with a point (or region) near an intersection. As described above, physical traffic lights may be removed from the intersection. Thus, the indicators are virtual representations of these, formerly, physical objects. In some embodiments, an indicator comprises a coordinate (or geofence) and a computer-processible description of the indicator. For example, a traffic light is associated with a point on a roadway and describes, for example, the timing of the traffic light. This type of indicator may be managed by a central (e.g., governmental) authority and may comprise fixed or semi-permanent indicators. As another example, a speed limit sign may comprise an indicator. In this context, the indicator may be persistent throughout a roadway and not limited to a specific point. Thus, the indicator may be transmitted repeatedly while a vehicle is traveling along a given road. As another example, an indicator may comprise a temporary indicator. For example, a construction crew may register a construction event taking place on a given segment of a roadway, the event having a fixed start and end time. In another embodiment, a physical transmitter may be plugged into the roadway allowing for ad hoc indicators to be installed within a roadway.
[0034] Indicator data is packetized and transmitted from a roadway to a vehicle over the secure channel established between the two. FIG. 5 is a packet structure diagram according to some embodiments of the disclosure and the disclosure of that Figure is incorporated herein by reference.
[0046] . . . As illustrated in FIG. 5, the packet includes a payload that describes the indicator and can include data such as a location (e.g., coordinate), indicator type (e.g., speed limit sign), data regarding the indicator (e.g., the legal speed limit), and any other data relevant to the indicator. The aforementioned example of a speed limit sign is used herein.
[0084] The packet (502a) includes identifying portion (502-508), payload (510), and signature (512). The identifying portion (502-508) includes a road or lane identifier (502). This identifier (502) comprises a cryptographically generated identifier of the road or lane. In one embodiment, the RIoT core generates this identifier (502) using an asymmetric key generator seeded with the CDI. The identifying portion (502-508) additionally includes a road or lane identification number (504). In contrast to identifier (502), this identifier (504) comprises a textual or numerical identifier of a roadway or lane (e.g., “US RTE 1,” US RTE 1, segment 123,” “US RTE 1, segment 123, lane 2”). Other encoding systems may be used to encode individual roadways or lanes. The identifying portion (502-508) additionally includes a certificate (506) and a public key (508). The certificate (506) and public key (508) are also generated by the RIoT core of the roadway. In one embodiment, the public key (508) is generated by an asymmetric key generator seeded with a random number. In one embodiment, the certificate is formed by encoding the public key using a private key of the output of the aforementioned asymmetric key generator seeded with the CDI. The output of this encryption is used as the data to be encrypted using the private key generated by the asymmetric key generator seeded with a random number. The packet (502a) also includes a payload portion (510). This payload comprises, for example, the indicator information described previously. Finally, the fields above (502-510) are signed by the sender using the senders private key (generated by the asymmetric key generator seeded with a random number) and the signature is included within the digital signature (512). In some embodiments, the packets may additionally include a freshness indicator (monotonic counter, timestamp, etc.) to avoid replay attacks.
However, while the indicator packet (e.g., 50A) (including the payload portion 510 and the signature 512) is said to include the digital signature, neither the “indicator” itself (which is described as being included in the payload or included in the payload portion 510 in FIG. 5, per published paragraphs [0046] and [0084]) nor the payload (510) of the packet (which includes the indicator and also “any other data relevant to the indicator”) is apparently described, in the specification, as including any digital signature (512), nor is it described that the transmitter of the indicator (or even the sender of the indicator packet) generates a digital signature which was included in the indicator. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the now claimed invention, but has only now described a desired result.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, applicant has apparently not described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, or even an indication that, he logged performance data while the sprite is active. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the now claimed invention, but has only now described a desired result.
In this respect and by contrast to what is claimed, FIG. 2 (reproduced below/on the next page) indicates that the effectiveness of the sprite is logged (e.g., with performance data at published paragraph [0061]) when/after the indicator is invalid, and upon determining that the sprite is no longer to-be-displayed (published paragraph [0060]):
PNG
media_image2.png
1062
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the now claimed invention, but has only now described a desired result.
Claims 1 to 5, 7 to 13, 15 to 17, 19, and 20 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.
In claim 1, lines 3ff, in claim 9, line 5, and in claim 17, line 3, “a location of an object in relation to a vehicle” is indefinite and not reasonably certain5 in the claim context and from the teachings of the specification which does not clarify what an object location that is “in relation to a vehicle” might mean (e.g., is this a relative location of the object relative to the vehicle, a location that is somehow related to or near the vehicle, etc.?) Here, the examiner merely notes the specification apparently does not use this indefinite/unclear language.
In claim 1, lines 6ff, in claim 9, lines 7ff, and in claim 17, lines 5ff, “wherein the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator” is fully indefinite from the teachings of the specification which apparently describes no “indicator” (e.g., as opposed to an “indicator packet”, cf. FIG. 5) that includes a “digital signature”, and clarifies no “transmitter” that might be different from the “wireless communication device” of the dependent claims (as proper claim interpretation would apparently require, in order to preclude an unclear double inclusion/recitation of the same claim element by different names; see MPEP 2173.05(o)) and might generate the digital signature that was included in the indicator. In this respect, because the recital of what the “indicator” includes in the claims is at variance with the description of what the indicator includes in the specification, it is also unclear (when reading the claim in light of the specification) whether the claimed “indicator” recitation is referring to (and e.g., covers only) the disclosed “indicator”, or whether it is referring to (and e.g., covers more broadly) the disclosed “indicator packet”. See MPEP 2173.02, I., “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
In claim 1, lines 13ff, in claim 9, lines 14ff, and in claim 17, lines 12ff, “log[] performance data of the vehicle while the sprite is active” is indefinite from the teachings of the specification, since i) it is unclear what “while the sprite is active” might mean in the claim context (e.g., what does “active” mean, and what in the claim is being modified by “while” the sprite is active, when the specification apparently does not use the word, “active”?), and ii) the specification indicates (at step 218 in FIG. 2) that the effectiveness of the sprite (which generally refers to the performance data of the vehicle) is logged when the indicator is “invalid” (e.g., when the sprite is not “valid”), or e.g., “upon determining that the sprite is no longer to-be-displayed” at paragraph [0060].
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1 to 5, 7 to 13, 15 to 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong I:
Claim(s) 1 to 5, 7 to 13, 15 to 17, 19, and 20, while (each) reciting a statutory category of invention defined in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter), is/are directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception, the recited abstract idea being that of generating a distortion function based on an indicator including a location of an object in relation to a vehicle and based on a location of the vehicle, wherein the indicator includes a [digital] signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator; select a sprite associated with the object and modify the sprite based on the distortion function, wherein the sprite comprises fixed elements, animated elements, and placeholder elements; and log performance data of the vehicle while the sprite is active, e.g., by providing a device comprising a processor configured to or a medium or a method defining steps that: generate a distortion function based on an indicator including a location of an object in relation to a vehicle and based on a location of the vehicle, wherein the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator; select a sprite associated with the object and modify the sprite based on the distortion function, wherein the sprite comprises fixed elements, animated elements, and placeholder elements; generate an augmented reality display using the sprite; display the augmented reality display in the vehicle; and log performance data of the vehicle while the sprite is active; per claim 2, depending from claim 1, the processor further configured to receive the indicator from a wireless communication device; the processor, medium or method further configured to transmit, to the wireless communication device, data regarding operations of the vehicle recorded while displaying the augmented reality display; the processor, medium, or method further configured to update an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) using the indicator; wherein the object comprises one of a road or a lane of a road; the generating of the augmented reality display further comprises overlaying an image of the vehicle in the augmented reality display; wherein the generating of the augmented reality display comprises generating a heads-up display.
This abstract idea falls within the grouping(s) of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity, distilled from case law, because the generating of the distortion function (e.g., which is a mathematical function with inputs used for calculating distortion; published paragraphs [0056], [0059], etc.) is a mathematical concept based on and defined by geometrical relationships, and the selecting and logging, as well as the generating of the distortion function, are mental processes that could be practically performed in the human mind.6
Step 2A, Prong II and Step 2B:
Additionally, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the abstract idea is not integrated (e.g., at Step 2A, Prong II) by the recitation of additional elements/limitations into a practical application (using the considerations set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)-(h)) because merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or adding the words "apply it" is not integrating the idea into a practical application of the idea, and e.g., looking at the claim as a whole and considering any additional elements/limitations individually and in combination, no (additional) particular machine, transformation, improvement to the functioning of a computer or an existing technological process or technical field, or meaningful application of the idea, beyond generally linking the idea to a technological environment (e.g., "implementation via computers", Alice) or adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., the generating/display of the augmented reality display including generating a heads-up display, digitally signing a transmitted message, etc.) is recited in or encompassed by the claims. Therefore, the claim is not integrated into a practical application and is thus "directed to" the exception.
Moreover, applying a preponderance of the evidence standard, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements/limitations/steps (e.g., at Step 2B) that are, individually or in ordered combination, sufficient to amount to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements/limitations/steps are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., the device, the generating/display of any or all augmented reality displays, including a heads-up display, the advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) that is apparently not used in any claim, etc.) so as to not favor eligibility (MPEP § 2106.05(d)) and/or are used e.g., for data/information gathering only or for other (e.g., insignificant AR display) activities that were well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the industry, for example as indicated in applicant's specification at published paragraphs [0003] to [0007] and in the (e.g., Firth, Grünler, Wikipedia ADAS, Wikipedia Digital Signature, and Lira) literature cited with the Office action(s) in support of this assertion, and moreover, the generically recited computer elements (e.g., a processor, a computer-readable storage medium, an augmented-reality display, a heads-up display, a transmitter, a wireless communication device, an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) that is not utilized in the claim, etc.; see e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 USPQ2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-1355, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”); Mobile Acuity, Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd., Case No. 22-2216 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2024); see also the 2019 PEG Advanced Module at pages 89, 145, etc.) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because their use would be routine (and conventional) in any computer implementation of the idea.
Moreover, limiting or linking the use of the idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., using the indicator in a vehicle that e.g., includes an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS)) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook[7]) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad.
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.
Claims 1 to 5, 7 to 13, 15 to 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaqub et al. (2019/0259208) in view of Koren (2018/0254001), Hori et al. (2013/0156017), Sarrazin et al. (Germany, 102011082601; EPO machine translation provided previously), and Follmer et al. (2010/0207751).
Yaqub et al. (‘208) reveals:
per claim 1, a device comprising:
a processor [e.g., obviously in the controller 133 and/or receiver 132] configured to:
generate a [e.g., a “gradual approach effect” as a “reasonable visual [] effects”, so that the virtual signage appears to approach closer gradually from the corner of the windshield as the driver approaches towards the location that would have otherwise been designated for physical signage, whereby as the driver passes the precise location the signage (as the object) may disappear (from view); e.g., paragraph [0031]; wherein the object may obviously be the (ground/3D) location for the signage, physical signage, the road the signage is on, or a lane the signage for, etc.] based on an indicator including a location of an object [e.g., the location of the (digital) sign/virtual signage, as the third piece of the data triplet (e.g., paragraph [0023]), the signage location data which pertains to the geolocation at which the signage is to be displayed, with the transmitters 120 each transmitting the “required signs in a particular area” where the vehicle is traveling in the geographic coverage area 440] in relation to a vehicle and based on a location of the vehicle [e.g., paragraph [0031], “the receiver 130 may keep projecting the digital sign until the vehicle arrives at the location (that was otherwise designated for a physical signage)”; see also paragraph [0028], “The receiver 130 employs the third piece of data to identify the appropriate geolocation for the applicable signage to be displayed so that once the vehicle's current location equals the identified location, the signage can be displayed by the receiver 130”; see also paragraphs [0042] to [0044], etc.],
select a sprite 8,9 associated with the object [e.g., selecting the signage template data, such as the rectangular template with the white background and border for the speed limit sign, and combining it with the signage legend data, such as “Speed Limit 35 MPH”, in order to craft a digital sign image; or e.g., a yellow (vehicle) slippery when wet sign (FIG. 1A), etc., based on the first and second pieces of the data triplet (paragraphs [0021] and [0022])] and modify the sprite based on the [e.g., the reasonable visual effects, including the “gradual approach effect” as an obvious modification of the signage, as taught at paragraph [0031]], wherein the sprite comprises fixed elements [e.g., the signage template data in paragraph [0022] related to color, background, borders and shape of the signage, etc.], [e.g., for example, for the speed limit sign, the signage legend data which indicates, for use with a signage template and within the border of the signage, “Speed Limit 35 MPH” at paragraph [0021]];
generate an augmented reality display using the sprite [e.g., at 480; and as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5];
display the augmented reality display in the vehicle [e.g., projecting, at 490, the sign image as a heads up display; and as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5; and
Yaqub et al. (‘208) may not expressly reveal the generation of the distortion function based on the position(s), that the indicator includes the digital signature, the animated elements/animation of the sprite, or the logging of the performance data. In this respect, regarding the animated elements and/or other (e.g., visual) sprite characteristics/properties, the examiner understands that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04, I. Moreover, by using a sprite comprising e.g., “animated elements”, the device (or medium or method) would merely display the augmented reality display generated using or with the animated elements. The display of animated elements/animation would not reconfigure the computer or otherwise alter how the computer functions and is thus nonfunctional printed matter. See Ex Parte Mathias,10 84 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (Informative), aff’d. 191 Fed.Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a computer that differs from the prior art solely with respect to nonfunctional descriptive material that cannot alter how the machine functions (i.e., the descriptive material does not reconfigure the computer) [is a common situation involving nonfunctional descriptive material]”). Similarly, the mere modifying of data, such as the claimed modifying of the visual property of the sprite, which also does not subsequently reconfigure the computer in any apparent claimed way, also involves nonfunctional descriptive material which is given no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05. Therefore, in the present case, since the animated elements and other elements/modified characteristics of the sprite do not have a functional relationship to the computer or prompt computer actions as claimed, but are rather merely used to generate a display to convey a message or meaning to a human viewer independent of the computer, and since the functionality of the claimed device (or medium or method) is not affected by displaying any animated elements or sprite characteristics, the examiner understands the fixed elements, the animated elements, the placeholder elements as well as the visual property and/or the animation of the sprite constitute nonfunctional descriptive material which is given no weight in determining the patentability of the pending claims.
However, in the context/field of improved displaying of “information” such as advertisements in a vehicle using augmented reality, Koren (‘001) teaches at paragraph [0003] that a problem with conventional head-up displays (HUD) is that the projected image does not appear stationary relative to the landscape view because of vehicle movements, and further addresses the problem by sensing vehicle orientation (position), acceleration, and velocity changes in time (paragraph [0034]), and calculating the size and a 3D distortion of the image, by compensating for the vehicle speed, and direction and distance to a stationary object 32, such as a stationary “real” or “imaginary” object (paragraph [0034]), where the image is to be projected, is achieved, and so that the projected image is fitted on object dimensions, in order to achieve the effect of a stationary object (and accordingly, a stationary image) on a moving [relative to the vehicle] landscape (paragraph [0037]).
Moreover, in the context/field of an improved vehicle terminal apparatus for packet road-to-vehicle communication with a base station providing road information, Hori et al. (‘017) teaches at paragraphs [0046], [0051], [0053], [0087], [0118], [0129], etc. and in conjunction with FIGS. 4E, 5, 17, etc. that the roadside apparatus uses its private key to create an electronic signature so that a user terminal receiving data attached with the electronic signature from the roadside apparatus can confirm the validity of the roadside apparatus as the origination source, and to confirm/estimate/verify that the received message is thus true, wherein as shown in FIG. 5, the message signature is provided in a 56 byte field after the message payload comprising application data such as e.g., vehicle information (paragraph [0087]).
Additionally, in the context/field of an improved method and device for displaying traffic sign information, Sarrazin et al. (DE, ‘601) teaches e.g., in conjunction with FIGS. 4 to 6 (and similarly, FIGS. 7 to 9) and paragraphs [0006]ff that an upcoming speed limit 420 is projected to be displayed at the road location 108 where the upcoming speed limit 420 will be valid, and as the vehicle travels into the location 108, a current speed limit 422 in the status information field 424 is replaced by the upcoming speed limit 420 by means of display animation (e.g., paragraphs [0038], [0039], [0059], [0060], [0064], and [0067]; see FIGS. 5 and 8 for the animation transitioning from outside to inside the status information field 424), whereby the driver will always see the speed change (e.g., from 70 km/h to 30 km/h in the drawings) projected in the status information field 424 and the valid current speed limit for the vehicle’s location, even if he does not perceive the upcoming speed limit 420 moving into the status information field 424.
Furthermore, in the context/field of improved viewing and correcting data in a street mapping database for display in a vehicle, Follmer et al. (‘751) teaches providing the vehicle with an event data recorder that “continuously monitor[s] vehicle motion” (paragraph [0026]) and reporting vehicle operation speeding violations to a server 214 (e.g., paragraphs [0031], [0032], [0034], [0040], etc.) for recording and reporting to authorities, supervisors, etc. and displaying on a vehicle display (120) the posted speed limit (504; see e.g., FIG. 5) and/or the current vehicle speed e.g., during the speeding violation condition (paragraphs [0024], [0038], [0041], etc.), and allowing a vehicle driver/operator to report an error (e.g., at 308 to 310, 702, 703, etc.), responsive to the current vehicle speed exceeding the stored, posted speed limit (at 305), in displayed street mapping data such as speed limits (FIG. 7) and/or in detected speeding violations (601) and e.g., to enter a corrected speed limit to be used in updating the electronic street mapping database 121 (e.g., paragraphs [0041] to [0045]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Yaqub et al. (‘208) system and method for presenting location based augmented reality road signs so that, in order to provide realistic visual effects (as desired by Yaqub et al. (‘208) himself) including e.g., allowing the projected road sign images to appear to be stationary relative to the landscape even when the vehicle was undergoing sensed changes in orientation/position, acceleration, and velocity, as taught by Koren (‘001), those sensed changes in vehicle orientation/position/movements would have been predictably used in calculations for image size and 3D distortion, as taught/suggested by Koren (‘001), in order to cause the projected image to remain stationary and be fitted to dimensions/positions relative to the landscape at the signage geolocation taught by Yaqub et al. (‘208), even in the face of movements resulting from changes in orientation/position, acceleration, and velocity of the vehicle, e.g., as the vehicle approached and passed the signage geolocation as described by Yaqub et al. (‘208), in order to make it appear that the vehicle was approaching the (geo-) location for the signage and/or to fit the image to object dimensions as taught by Koren (‘001), together with the reasonable visual effects of Yaqub et al. (‘208), with a reasonable expectation of success, as e.g., combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and as e.g., a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
For example only, this modification (depicted below/on the next page by the examiner in a sketch) of Yaqub et al. (‘208) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when projecting a road sign that was intended to remain stationary relative to a real object/position of the environment even when the vehicle was moving/changing its positions, with the size of the (obviously constant) sign being fitted to the size of the real or imaginary object/position:
[This part of the page intentionally left blank.]
PNG
media_image3.png
702
620
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Moreover, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or modify the Yaqub et al. (‘208) system and method for presenting location based augmented reality road signs so that a digital signature in the message/packet (containing the data triplets from the transmitter (120) including the indicator triplet pieces) to the vehicle would have been provided based on a private key of the transmitter, as taught by Hori et al. (‘017) e.g., in conjunction with FIGS. 5, etc., in order that the vehicle receiving the triplet data attached with the electronic signature from the transmitter could confirm the validity of the transmitter as the origination source, as taught by Hori et al. (‘017), and could confirm/estimate/verify that the received message (data triplet) is thus true, with a reasonable expectation of success, as e.g., combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and as e.g., a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Additionally, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Yaqub et al. (‘208) system and method for presenting location based augmented reality road signs so that both the upcoming speed limit (420) at a road location (108) and the current speed limit (422) would have been projected for the driver to see, as taught by Sarrazin et al. (DE, ‘601) in FIGS 4 and 7, and so that as the vehicle travels into the location (108), a currently valid speed limit (422) in a projected status information field (424) would have been replaced by the upcoming speed limit 420 by means of display animation, as taught by Sarrazin et al. (DE, ‘601) e.g., at paragraphs [0038], [0039], [0059], [0060], [0064], and [0067], see also FIGS. 5 and 8 for the animation transitioning from outside to inside the status information field 424, in order that the driver will see the speed change (e.g., from 70 km/h to 30 km/h in the drawings, in FIGS. 6 and 9 of Sarrazin et al. (DE, ‘601)) projected in the status information field 424 and the valid current speed limit for the vehicle’s location, with a reasonable expectation of success, as e.g., combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and as e.g., a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement or further modify the Yaqub et al. (‘208) system and method for presenting location based augmented reality road signs so that driving conditions (e.g., vehicle speed as performance data) indicative of vehicle operation speeding violations would have been reported (e.g., via a wireless communication network 207) to a server (214) e.g., for recording and reporting violations e.g., to authorities and/or emailing supervisors, as taught by Follmer et al. (‘751) at paragraph [0031], [0032], [0034], [0040], etc., and with the posted speed limit also being displayed in/by the vehicle (e.g., FIGS. 5 and 6), and so that, in order to allow a vehicle driver/operator to report an error (e.g., at 702, 703) in displayed street mapping data of the database (510), including the posted speed limit, and/or in detected speeding violations (601), a data correction and/or error reporting method (FIG. 3 in Follmer et al. (‘751)) and display (700 in Follmer et al. (‘751)) would have been provided for the driver/operator in Yaqub et al. (‘208), as taught by Follmer et al. (‘751), e.g., to both confirm data (701) and report errors (702, 703) to the server (214), based on the current vehicle speed exceeding the stored posted speed limit (at 305 in FIG. 3 of Follmer et al. (‘751)) while the posted speed limit was displayed as the sprite (e.g., paragraphs [0024], [0038], etc., FIG. 5, etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751)) as in FIG. 1A of Yaqub et al. (‘201), and e.g., enter a corrected speed limit to be used in updating the electronic street mapping data (“data triplets” including signage legend/template data) in the database (110, 510), as taught by Follmer et al. (‘751), to be used in the crafting of the digital sign images (paragraph [0029]), in order that speeding violations of vehicles could be reported by the server (214) for recording and reporting to authorities or notifying a supervisor by email, as taught by Follmer et al. (‘751), in order that the street mapping data would have been corrected and undated by driver/operator reports, as taught by Follmer et al. (‘751), with a reasonable expectation of success, as e.g., combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and as e.g., a use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
As such, the implemented or further modified Yaqub et al. (‘208) system and method for presenting location based augmented reality road signs would have rendered obvious:
per claim 1, a device comprising:
a[11] processor [e.g., in Koren (‘001), obviously in the controller 133, the receiver 132, in the server 511, etc.] configured to:
generate a distortion function [e.g., in Koren (‘001), by calculating “the size and 3D distortion of image 31 to be projected as image on the window 3 in order to fit the image on the [] object dimensions” (paragraph [0034]), based e.g., on the vehicle direction and distance from the object 32, with the distance (of the vehicle) from the object obviously being “based on” both a position associated with the object and a position of the vehicle, and as also being obvious from the teachings of Koren (‘001) at paragraph [0034], in order to compensate for and address all vehicle movements/orientations/positions, when correcting the image projection to have the image remain stationary (and at the proper size) relative to the landscape; and as suggested by Yaqub et al. (‘208) himself, for a “gradual approach effect” as a “reasonable visual [] effects”, so that the virtual signage appears to approach closer gradually from the corner of the windshield as the driver approaches towards the location that would have otherwise been designated for physical signage, whereby as the driver passes the precise location the signage (as the object) may disappear (from view); e.g., paragraph [0031]; wherein the object may obviously be the (ground/3D) location for the signage, physical signage, the road the signage is on, or a lane the signage for, etc.] based on an indicator including a location of an object [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the location of the (digital) sign/virtual signage, as the third piece of the data triplet (e.g., paragraph [0023]), the signage location data which pertains to the geolocation at which the signage is to be displayed, with the transmitters 120 each transmitting the “required signs in a particular area” where the vehicle is traveling in the geographic coverage area 440] in relation to a vehicle [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), paragraph [0031], “the receiver 130 may keep projecting the digital sign until the vehicle arrives at the location (that was otherwise designated for a physical signage)”; see also paragraph [0028], “The receiver 130 employs the third piece of data to identify the appropriate geolocation for the applicable signage to be displayed so that once the vehicle's current location equals the identified location, the signage can be displayed by the receiver 130”; see also paragraphs [0042] to [0044], etc., and other passages described above] and based on a location of the vehicle, [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), paragraph [0031], “the receiver 130 may keep projecting the digital sign until the vehicle arrives at the location (that was otherwise designated for a physical signage)”; and other passages described above], wherein the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator [e.g., the electronic signature as described e.g., in conjunction with FIG. 5, in Hori et al. (‘017), to confirm the validity of the transmitter (120) in Yaqub et al. (‘208) as the origination source, and to confirm/estimate/verify that the received data triplet message is thus true];
select a sprite 12,13 associated with the object [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), selecting the signage template data, such as the rectangular template with the white background and border for the speed limit sign, and combining it with the signage legend data, such as “Speed Limit 35 MPH”, in order to craft a digital sign image; or e.g., a yellow (vehicle) slippery when wet sign (FIG. 1A), etc., based on the first and second pieces of the data triplet (paragraphs [0021] and [0022])] and modify the sprite based on the distortion function [e.g., in Koren (‘001), by calculating “the size and 3D distortion of image 31 to be projected as image on the window 3 in order to fit the image on the [] object dimensions” (paragraph [0034]); and in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the reasonable visual effects, including the “gradual approach effect” as an obvious modification of the signage, as taught at paragraph [0031]], wherein the sprite comprises fixed elements [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the signage template data in paragraph [0022] related to color, background, borders and shape of the signage, etc.], animated elements [e.g., the animation of the projected upcoming speed limit 420 in Sarrazin et al. (DE, ‘601) moving into the status information field 424, as it becomes valid, and replacing the previously valid current speed limit 422], and placeholder elements [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), for example, for the speed limit sign, the signage legend data which indicates, for use with a signage template and within the border of the signage, “Speed Limit 35 MPH” at paragraph [0021]];
generate an augmented reality display using the sprite [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), at 480; and as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5; with the augmented reality as taught by Koren (‘001)];
display the augmented reality display in the vehicle [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), projecting, at 490, the sign image as a heads up display; and as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5; with the augmented reality as taught by Koren (‘001)]; and
log performance data of the vehicle while the sprite is active [e.g., in the reports of paragraph [0031] in Follmer et al. (‘751), “Vehicle monitoring unit 201 may transmit reports to server 214, such as driving conditions, vehicle operation parameters, or violations of operating requirements or limitations. Server 214 may then take action to record, report and/or mentor this behavior”, obviously collecting the data while the (speed limit) sign image in Yaqub et al. (‘208), or in FIG. 6, etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751), is displayed; see also paragraphs [0027], [0030], [0033], etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751); and by the driver using the update button 603 in FIG. 6 of Follmer et al. (‘751) to e.g., either confirm, update, or report an error in the speed limit; and by the speeding violation being displayed to the driver and reported to the third party/ies at paragraphs [0040], [0041], FIG. 6, etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751) obviously while the speed limit (sprite) in Yaqub et al. (‘208) or Follmer et al. (‘751) was displayed (in FIG. 6 of Follmer et al. (‘751), in order to show its displaying was ineffective, since the driver still violated the displayed speed limit];
per claim 2, depending from claim 1, the processor further configured to receive the indicator from a wireless communication device [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the broadcast “data triplets” comprising the signage legend data, the signage template data, and the signage location (geolocation) data, obtained wirelessly from the transmitter 120 in Yaqub et al. (‘208) as part of a “wireless communication device” that obviously would have additionally included the server 511 in Yaqub et al. (‘208) and/or the server 214 and wireless data network 207 in Follmer et al. (‘751)];
per claim 3, depending from claim 2, the processor further configured to transmit, to the wireless communication device [e.g., to the server 214 in Follmer et al. (‘651) via the wireless communication network 207], data regarding operations of the vehicle recorded while displaying the augmented reality display [e.g., the vehicle speed and whether or not the vehicle is speeding, at paragraphs [0031], [0032], [0034], [0040], etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751) obviously occurring while/after a speed limit (signage, as a sprite) was (e.g., first) displayed];
per claim 4, depending from claim 2, the processor further configured to update an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) using the indicator [e.g., the receiver 130 including the navigation system of Yaqub et al. (‘208); e.g., paragraph [0026]];
per claim 5, depending from claim 1, wherein the object comprises one of a road or a lane of a road [e.g., for the warning signs such as “Lane Merges”, “Lane Ends”, “Uneven Pavement”, and so forth, in Yaqub et al. (‘208); e.g., paragraph [0017]; with speed limit signs also being associated with roads, etc. as objects];
per claim 7, depending from claim 1, wherein generating the augmented reality display further comprises overlaying an image of the vehicle in the augmented reality display [e.g., as shown by the [well-known and conventional] “Slippery When Wet sign (reproduced in the examiner’s sketch above), in FIG. 1A of Yaqub et al. (‘208)];
per claim 8, depending from claim 1, wherein generating the augmented reality display comprises generating a heads-up display [e.g., as in Yaqub et al. (‘208) and Koren (‘001)];
per claim 9, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for tangibly storing computer program instructions capable of being executed by a processor [e.g., in Koren (‘001), obviously in the controller 133, the receiver 132, etc.], the computer program instructions defining steps of:
generating, by the processor, a distortion function [e.g., in Koren (‘001), by calculating “the size and 3D distortion of image 31 to be projected as image on the window 3 in order to fit the image on the [] object dimensions” (paragraph [0034]), based e.g., on the vehicle direction and distance from the object 32, with the distance (of the vehicle) from the object obviously being “based on” both a position associated with the object and a position of the vehicle, and as also being obvious from the teachings of Koren (‘001) at paragraph [0034], in order to compensate for and address all vehicle movements/orientations/positions, when correcting the image projection to have the image remain stationary (and at the proper size) relative to the landscape; and as suggested by Yaqub et al. (‘208) himself, for a “gradual approach effect” as a “reasonable visual [] effects”, so that the virtual signage appears to approach closer gradually from the corner of the windshield as the driver approaches towards the location that would have otherwise been designated for physical signage, whereby as the driver passes the precise location the signage (as the object) may disappear (from view); e.g., paragraph [0031]; wherein the object may obviously be the (ground/3D) location for the signage, physical signage, the road the signage is on, or a lane the signage for, etc.] based on an indicator including a location of an object [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the location of the (digital) sign/virtual signage, as the third piece of the data triplet (e.g., paragraph [0023]), the signage location data which pertains to the geolocation at which the signage is to be displayed, with the transmitters 120 each transmitting the “required signs in a particular area” where the vehicle is traveling in the geographic coverage area 440] in relation to a vehicle [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), paragraph [0031], “the receiver 130 may keep projecting the digital sign until the vehicle arrives at the location (that was otherwise designated for a physical signage)”; see also paragraph [0028], “The receiver 130 employs the third piece of data to identify the appropriate geolocation for the applicable signage to be displayed so that once the vehicle's current location equals the identified location, the signage can be displayed by the receiver 130”; see also paragraphs [0042] to [0044], etc., and other passages described above] and based on a location of the vehicle [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), paragraph [0031], “the receiver 130 may keep projecting the digital sign until the vehicle arrives at the location (that was otherwise designated for a physical signage)”; and other passages described above], wherein the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator [e.g., the electronic signature as described e.g., in conjunction with FIG. 5, in Hori et al. (‘017), to confirm the validity of the transmitter (120) in Yaqub et al. (‘208) as the origination source, and to confirm/estimate/verify that the received data triplet message is thus true];
selecting, by the processor, a sprite associated with the object [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), selecting the signage template data, such as the rectangular template with the white background and border for the speed limit sign, and combining it with the signage legend data, such as “Speed Limit 35 MPH”, in order to craft a digital sign image; or e.g., a yellow (vehicle) slippery when wet sign (FIG. 1A), etc., based on the first and second pieces of the data triplet (paragraphs [0021] and [0022])] and modifying the sprite based on the distortion function [e.g., in Koren (‘001), by calculating “the size and 3D distortion of image 31 to be projected as image on the window 3 in order to fit the image on the [] object dimensions” (paragraph [0034]); and in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the reasonable visual effects, including the “gradual approach effect” as an obvious modification of the signage, as taught at paragraph [0031]], wherein the sprite comprises fixed elements [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the signage template data in paragraph [0022] related to color, background, borders and shape of the signage, etc.], animated elements [e.g., the animation of the projected upcoming speed limit 420 in Sarrazin et al. (DE, ‘601) moving into the status information field 424, as it becomes valid, and replacing the previously valid current speed limit 422], and placeholder elements [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), for example, for the speed limit sign, the signage legend data which indicates, for use with a signage template and within the border of the signage, “Speed Limit 35 MPH” at paragraph [0021]];
generating, by the processor, an augmented reality display using the sprite [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), at 480; and as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5; with the augmented reality as taught by Koren (‘001)];
displaying, by the processor, the augmented reality display in the vehicle [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), projecting, at 490, the sign image as a heads up display; and as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5; with the augmented reality as taught by Koren (‘001)]; and
logging, by the processor, performance data of the vehicle while the sprite is active [e.g., in the reports of paragraph [0031] in Follmer et al. (‘751), “Vehicle monitoring unit 201 may transmit reports to server 214, such as driving conditions, vehicle operation parameters, or violations of operating requirements or limitations. Server 214 may then take action to record, report and/or mentor this behavior”, obviously collecting the data while the (speed limit) sign image in Yaqub et al. (‘208), or in FIG. 6, etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751), is displayed; see also paragraphs [0027], [0030], [0033], etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751); and by the driver using the update button 603 in FIG. 6 of Follmer et al. (‘751) to e.g., either confirm, update, or report an error in the speed limit; and by the speeding violation being displayed to the driver and reported to the third party/ies at paragraphs [0040], [0041], FIG. 6, etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751) obviously while the speed limit (sprite) in Yaqub et al. (‘208) or Follmer et al. (‘751) was displayed (in FIG. 6 of Follmer et al. (‘751), in order to show its displaying was ineffective, since the driver still violated the displayed speed limit];
per claim 10, depending from claim 9, the steps further comprising receiving, by the processor, the indicator from a wireless communication device [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the broadcast “data triplets” comprising the signage legend data, the signage template data, and the signage location (geolocation) data, obtained wirelessly from the transmitter 120 in Yaqub et al. (‘208) as part of a “wireless communication device” that obviously would have additionally included the server 511 in Yaqub et al. (‘208)];
per claim 11, depending from claim 10, the steps further comprising transmitting, by the processor to the wireless communication device [e.g., to the server 214 in Follmer et al. (‘651) via the wireless communication network 207], data regarding operations of the vehicle recorded while displaying the augmented reality display [e.g., the vehicle speed and whether or not the vehicle is speeding, at paragraphs [0031], [0032], [0034], [0040], etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751) obviously occurring while/after a speed limit (signage, as a sprite) was (e.g., first) displayed];
per claim 12, depending from claim 10, the steps further comprising updating an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) using the indicator [e.g., the receiver 130 including the navigation system of Yaqub et al. (‘208); e.g., paragraph [0026]];
per claim 13, depending from claim 9, wherein the object comprises one of a road or a lane of a road [e.g., for the warning signs such as “Lane Merges”, “Lane Ends”, “Uneven Pavement”, and so forth, in Yaqub et al. (‘208); e.g., paragraph [0017]; with speed limit signs also being associated with roads, etc. as objects];
per claim 15, depending from claim 9, wherein generating the augmented reality display further comprises overlaying an image of the vehicle in the augmented reality display [e.g., as shown by the [well-known and conventional] “Slippery When Wet sign (reproduced in the examiner’s sketch above), in FIG. 1A of Yaqub et al. (‘208)];
per claim 16, depending from claim 9, wherein generating the augmented reality display comprises generating a heads-up display [e.g., as in Yaqub et al. (‘208) and Koren (‘001)];
per claim 17, a method comprising:
generating, by a processor [e.g., in Koren (‘001), obviously in the controller 133, the receiver 132, etc.], a distortion function [e.g., in Koren (‘001), by calculating “the size and 3D distortion of image 31 to be projected as image on the window 3 in order to fit the image on the [] object dimensions” (paragraph [0034]), based e.g., on the vehicle direction and distance from the object 32, with the distance (of the vehicle) from the object obviously being “based on” both a position associated with the object and a position of the vehicle, and as also being obvious from the teachings of Koren (‘001) at paragraph [0034], in order to compensate for and address all vehicle movements/orientations/positions, when correcting the image projection to have the image remain stationary (and at the proper size) relative to the landscape; and as suggested by Yaqub et al. (‘208) himself, for a “gradual approach effect” as a “reasonable visual [] effects”, so that the virtual signage appears to approach closer gradually from the corner of the windshield as the driver approaches towards the location that would have otherwise been designated for physical signage, whereby as the driver passes the precise location the signage (as the object) may disappear (from view); e.g., paragraph [0031]; wherein the object may obviously be the (ground/3D) location for the signage, physical signage, the road the signage is on, or a lane the signage for, etc.] based on an indicator including a location of an object [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the location of the (digital) sign/virtual signage, as the third piece of the data triplet (e.g., paragraph [0023]), the signage location data which pertains to the geolocation at which the signage is to be displayed, with the transmitters 120 each transmitting the “required signs in a particular area” where the vehicle is traveling in the geographic coverage area 440] in relation to a vehicle [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), paragraph [0031], “the receiver 130 may keep projecting the digital sign until the vehicle arrives at the location (that was otherwise designated for a physical signage)”; see also paragraph [0028], “The receiver 130 employs the third piece of data to identify the appropriate geolocation for the applicable signage to be displayed so that once the vehicle's current location equals the identified location, the signage can be displayed by the receiver 130”; see also paragraphs [0042] to [0044], etc., and other passages described above] and based on a location of the vehicle [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), paragraph [0031], “the receiver 130 may keep projecting the digital sign until the vehicle arrives at the location (that was otherwise designated for a physical signage)”; and other passages described above], wherein the indicator includes a digital signature generated by a transmitter of the indicator [e.g., the electronic signature as described e.g., in conjunction with FIG. 5, in Hori et al. (‘017), to confirm the validity of the transmitter (120) in Yaqub et al. (‘208) as the origination source, and to confirm/estimate/verify that the received data triplet message is thus true];
selecting, by the processor, a sprite associated with the object [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), selecting the signage template data, such as the rectangular template with the white background and border for the speed limit sign, and combining it with the signage legend data, such as “Speed Limit 35 MPH”, in order to craft a digital sign image; or e.g., a yellow (vehicle) slippery when wet sign (FIG. 1A), etc., based on the first and second pieces of the data triplet (paragraphs [0021] and [0022])] and modifying the sprite based on the distortion function [e.g., in Koren (‘001), by calculating “the size and 3D distortion of image 31 to be projected as image on the window 3 in order to fit the image on the [] object dimensions” (paragraph [0034]); and in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the reasonable visual effects, including the “gradual approach effect” as an obvious modification of the signage, as taught at paragraph [0031]], wherein the sprite comprises fixed elements [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), the signage template data in paragraph [0022] related to color, background, borders and shape of the signage, etc.], animated elements [e.g., the animation of the projected upcoming speed limit 420 in Sarrazin et al. (DE, ‘601) moving into the status information field 424, as it becomes valid, and replacing the previously valid current speed limit 422], and placeholder elements [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), for example, for the speed limit sign, the signage legend data which indicates, for use with a signage template and within the border of the signage, “Speed Limit 35 MPH” at paragraph [0021]];
generating, by the processor, an augmented reality display using the sprite [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), at 480; and as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5; with the augmented reality as taught by Koren (‘001)];
displaying, by the processor, the augmented reality display in the vehicle [e.g., in Yaqub et al. (‘208), projecting, at 490, the sign image as a heads up display; and as shown in FIGS. 1 and 5; with the augmented reality as taught by Koren (‘001)]; and
logging, by the processor, performance data of the vehicle while the sprite is active [e.g., in the reports of paragraph [0031] in Follmer et al. (‘751), “Vehicle monitoring unit 201 may transmit reports to server 214, such as driving conditions, vehicle operation parameters, or violations of operating requirements or limitations. Server 214 may then take action to record, report and/or mentor this behavior”, obviously collecting the data while the (speed limit) sign image in Yaqub et al. (‘208), or in FIG. 6, etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751), is displayed; see also paragraphs [0027], [0030], [0033], etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751); and by the driver using the update button 603 in FIG. 6 of Follmer et al. (‘751) to e.g., either confirm, update, or report an error in the speed limit; and by the speeding violation being displayed to the driver and reported to the third party/ies at paragraphs [0040], [0041], FIG. 6, etc. in Follmer et al. (‘751) obviously while the speed limit (sprite) in Yaqub et al. (‘208) or Follmer et al. (‘751) was displayed (in FIG. 6 of Follmer et al. (‘751), in order to show its displaying was ineffective, since the driver still violated the displayed speed limit];
per claim 19, depending from claim 17, wherein generating the augmented reality display further comprises overlaying an image of the vehicle in the augmented reality display [e.g., as shown by the [well-known and conventional] “Slippery When Wet sign (reproduced in the examiner’s sketch above), in FIG. 1A of Yaqub et al. (‘208)];
per claim 20, depending from claim 17, wherein generating the augmented reality display comprises generating a heads-up display [e.g., as in Yaqub et al. (‘208) and Koren (‘001)];
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5 February 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 11,373,527 to Mondello et al. has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example only, the Firth literature, the Grünler literature, and the Wikipedia literature cited herewith further reveal what was well-understood, routine, conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
McClellan et al. (2008/0252487) is incorporated by reference into Follmer et al. (‘751) at paragraph [0026] and teaches at paragraph [0080], “When a speeding condition is identified, the monitoring system may create a record including, for example, the vehicle's location, the speed-by-street data for that location, and the vehicle's speed. The record may be saved at the vehicle monitoring system or it may be transmitted to a central database or monitoring system server. Alternatively, when a speeding condition is identified, an alert may be sent to the central database or monitoring system server.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David A Testardi whose telephone number is (571)270-3528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, 8:30am - 5:30pm E.T., and Friday, 8:30 am - 12:30 pm E.T.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached at (571) 272-4896. 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.
/DAVID A TESTARDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
1 For example, applicant argued at page 5 of the Remarks on 25 July 2024 that, “The logging of sprite effectiveness and subsequent modification of sprite properties based on that effectiveness represent a feedback loop that is characteristic of machine learning and adaptive systems. This is not a mental process or method of organizing human activity, but a technological process for improving the functionality of the augmented reality system over time.” The examiner’s response to applicant’s arguments at paragraph 15 of the Final Rejection on 24 September 2024 indicated, "Fifth, applicant's arguments regarding e.g., the "technological process for improving the functionality of the augmented reality system over time", and/or other improvements, are convincing. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn."
2 Quoting the MPEP:
“New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.”
3 See the 2019 35 U.S.C. 112 Compliance Federal Register Notice (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday, January 7, 2019, pages 57 to 63). See also http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/exTrain/documents/2019-112-guidance-initiative.pptx . Quoting the FR Notice at pages 61 and 62, "The Federal Circuit emphasized that ‘‘[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a ‘desired result.’ ’’ Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 (quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349). . . . When examining computer-implemented, software-related claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm(s) that achieve the claimed function in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as 'a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task.' Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may 'express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.' Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340 (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could theoretically write a program to achieve the claimed function, rather the specification itself must explain how the claimed function is achieved to demonstrate that the applicant had possession of it. See, e.g., Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682–83. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm(s) in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention that achieves the claimed result, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made. See MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I."
4 See MPEP 2161.01, I. and LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) cited therein ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the applicant possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a)]"). See also MPEP 2163.02.
5 See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014) which held, "A patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention." See also In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed.Cir.2014)(“[A] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear,” i.e., “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention.”) and Ex Parte McAward, Appeal No. 2015-006416 (PTAB, Aug. 25, 2017, Precedential) (“Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim, then, the Office establishes a prima facie case of indefiniteness with a rejection explaining how the metes and bounds of a pending claim are not clear because the claim contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”)
6 See MPEP 2106.04, II., A., 2., “See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract’)”
7 See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 ("Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.")
8 sprite (spraɪt) n
. . .
3. (Games, other than specified) an icon in a computer game which can be manoeuvred around the screen by means of a joystick, etc
[From: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014. Retrieved 13 August 2021.]
9 sprite
A user-definable pattern of pixels that can be moved about as an entity on a display screen by program commands. For example, the screen cursor in a windows system that takes on different appearances in different situations is a sprite.
[From: Oxford Reference, A Dictionary of Computing (6 ed.), 2008. Retrieved 9 October 2020.]
10 Quoting the decision, regarding the claim for an on-screen icon for viewing the score of a broadcast sporting event, “We agree with the Examiner that the prior art anticipates claim 1 because it teaches each and every limitation of the claim. The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is simply a rearrangement of nonfunctional descriptive material (the particular broadcasted image). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103.”
11 It has been established that “[a]s a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It has also been held that “[t]he exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
12 sprite (spraɪt) n
. . .
3. (Games, other than specified) an icon in a computer game which can be manoeuvred around the screen by means of a joystick, etc
[From: Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014. Retrieved 13 August 2021.]
13 sprite
A user-definable pattern of pixels that can be moved about as an entity on a display screen by program commands. For example, the screen cursor in a windows system that takes on different appearances in different situations is a sprite.
[From: Oxford Reference, A Dictionary of Computing (6 ed.), 2008. Retrieved 9 October 2020.]
Prosecution Insights