DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
The filing on 04/20/2026 amended claims 1-3, 10-13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, cancelled claim 17 and added claim 22. Claims 1-16 and 18-22 are rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1, 13, 18, 21 and addition of claim 22.
Claim Rejections - AIA 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacroix (US 5137348 A) in view of (Kobayashi (US 20210072552 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lacroix teaches a simulator configured to simulate an aircraft with a chin window (bottom windows, FD; Fig. 3), the system comprising: a screen (17/18) configured to display the image depicting an object; a mirror (12/13) configured to reflect the image displayed by the screen (17/18) to the designated eye point, wherein the chin window is positioned between the designated eye point and the mirror (12/13), and wherein the image displayed by the screen (17/18) is visible to the user through the chin window.
Lacroix does not teach a system for adjusting a focal distance of the image displayed to the user at the designated eye point of the simulator wherein the mirror spaced from the screen by a distance that is variable, and an adjustor configured to move the screen to adjust the distance between the screen and the mirror.
Kobayashi teaches a system (Fig. 1-7) for adjusting a focal distance of an image displayed to a user at a designated eye point, comprising: a screen (12) configured to display the image depicting an object; a mirror (14) configured to reflect the image displayed by the screen (12) to the designated eye point, the mirror (14) spaced from the screen (12) by a distance that is variable ([0024]); and an adjustor (20, 22) configured to move the screen (12) to adjust the distance between the screen (12) and the mirror (14; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lacroix with Kobayashi; because it allows adjusting the position of the image to improve viewing experience.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lacroix and Kobayashi consequently results in the screen (12 of Kobayashi) being at least one of a liquid-crystal display, an organic light-emitting diode display, a liquid crystal on silicon display, a light-emitting diode display, a quantum dot display, and a plasma display ([0022] of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lacroix and Kobayashi consequently results in a projector (11 of Kobayashi) configured to project the image onto the screen (12 of Kobayashi), wherein the screen (12 of Kobayashi) is one of a front projection screen (12 of Kobayashi) and a back projection screen (12; [0022] of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lacroix and Kobayashi consequently results in the projector (11) is a fixed distance from the screen (12 of Kobayashi), and wherein the adjustor (20, 22 of Kobayashi) is configured to move the screen (12 of Kobayashi) and the projector (11; Fig. 4, 6 and 7 of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lacroix and Kobayashi consequently results in the adjustor (20, 22 of Kobayashi) comprises a motor (26 of Kobayashi) for moving the screen (12 of Kobayashi) to adjust the distance ([0049], [0051] of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lacroix and Kobayashi consequently results in the mirror (14 of Kobayashi) is stationary and the screen (12 of Kobayashi) is interconnected to a platform (38 of Kobayashi) of the adjustor (20, 22 of Kobayashi), and wherein the platform (38 of Kobayashi) is configured to move to adjust the distance between the screen (12 of Kobayashi) and the mirror (14; [0051] of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lacroix and Kobayashi consequently results in the distance from the screen (12 of Kobayashi) to the mirror (14 of Kobayashi) correlates to the focal distance, wherein in a first position the screen (12 of Kobayashi) is a first distance from the mirror (14 of Kobayashi) and the focal distance is at infinity ([0025]), and, inherently, light rays reflected from the mirror are substantially parallel, and wherein in a second position the screen (12 of Kobayashi) is a second distance from the mirror (14 of Kobayashi) and the focal distance is less than infinity, the first distance being greater than the second distance ([0025]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lacroix and Kobayashi consequently results in having no optical elements are positioned in the optical path between the projector and the screen (Fig. 3 and 4 of Lacroix; Fig. 4, 6 and 7 of Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 20, Lacroix teaches a flight simulator for training a student to operate an aircraft (Fig. 3 and 4), comprising: a primary display system (7-11) to simulate a view out of a window (upper windows, FS) of the aircraft, comprising: a projector (9-11); a first screen (8), wherein the projector (9-11) is operable to generate a first image that is displayed on the first screen (8); and a mirror (7) array to reflect the first image to a designated eye point (of 19) of the simulator; and a second display system (12, 13, 15-18) to simulate a second view outside the aircraft through a chin window (bottom windows, FD; Fig. 3) in a cabin of the simulator, the chin window positioned near a floor of the cabin, the second display comprising: a second screen (17/18) to display a second image; a mirror (12/13) to reflect the second image from the second screen (17/18) through the chin window and to the designated eye point.
Lacroix does not teach a variable collimation display system having an adjustor configured to move the second screen (17/18) relative to the mirror (12/13), wherein the mirror (12/13) is spaced from the second screen (17/18) by a distance that is variable, wherein when the second screen (17/18) is a first distance from the mirror (12/13) the second image is at infinity focus, and wherein when the second screen (17/18) is a second distance from the mirror (12/13) the second image has a fixed focal distance that is less than infinity, the second distance being less than the first distance.
Kobayashi teaches the variable collimation display comprising: a mirror (14) to reflect the second image from the second screen (12) through a window and to the designated eye point; and an adjustor (20, 22) configured to move the second screen (12) relative to the mirror (14), wherein when the second screen (12) is a first distance from the mirror (14) the second image is at infinity focus, and wherein when the second screen (12) is a second distance from the mirror (14) the second image has a fixed focal distance that is less than infinity, the second distance being less than the first distance ([0024], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine the APA with Kobayashi; because it allows the display to present depth in the images to improve user experience.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lacroix and Kobayashi consequently results in the mirror (12/13 of Lacroix; 14 of Kobayashi) is stationary and the mirror (12/13 of Lacroix; 14 of Kobayashi) is a fixed distance from the designated eye point, and wherein a surface of the screen (17/18 of Lacroix) facing the mirror (12/13 Lacroix) is convex.
Claims 1-3, 13-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacroix (US 5137348 A) in view of Murata (US 20220107497 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lacroix teaches a simulator configured to simulate an aircraft with a chin window (bottom windows, FD; Fig. 3), the system comprising: a screen (17/18) configured to display the image depicting an object; a mirror (12/13) configured to reflect the image displayed by the screen (17/18) to the designated eye point, wherein the chin window is positioned between the designated eye point and the mirror (12/13), and wherein the image displayed by the screen (17/18) is visible to the user through the chin window.
Lacroix does not teach a system for adjusting a focal distance of the image displayed to the user at the designated eye point of the simulator wherein the mirror spaced from the screen by a distance that is variable, and an adjustor configured to move the screen to adjust the distance between the screen and the mirror.
Murata teaches a system (Fig. 1-25) for adjusting a focal distance of an image displayed to a user at a designated eye point, comprising: a screen (427) configured to display the image depicting an object; a mirror (428) configured to reflect the image displayed by the screen (427) to the designated eye point, the mirror (428) spaced from the screen (427) by a distance that is variable ([0170]); and an adjustor (drive unit) configured to move the screen (427) to adjust the distance between the screen (427) and the mirror (428; [0170]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lacroix with Murata; because it allows adjusting the position of the image to improve viewing experience.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lacroix and Murata consequently results in a control system (425 of Murata) in communication with the adjustor (drive unit of Murata), the control system (425 of Murata) configured to: generate the image, wherein the image simulates a view outside the aircraft (Fig. 3 and 4 of Lacroix); determine a focal distance for the image based on a simulated distance between the designated eye point and the object in the image; determine a simulated size of the object based on the simulated distance; generate instructions to cause the adjustor (drive unit) to adjust the distance between the screen (427 of Murata) and the mirror (428 of Murata) to achieve the focal distance; and adjust a size of the object in the image based on the determined simulated size ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195] of Murata).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lacroix and Murata consequently results in a surface of the screen (17/18 of Lacroix) facing the mirror (12/13 of Lacroix) is convex (Fig. 3 and 4 of Lacroix).
Regarding claim 13, Lacroix teaches a simulator configured to simulate a view outside an aircraft seen through a chin window (bottom windows, FD; Fig. 3), the system comprising: a screen (17/18) configured to display the image depicting an object; a mirror (12/13) configured to reflect the image displayed by the screen (17/18) to the designated eye point, wherein the chin window is positioned between the designated eye point and the mirror (12/13), and wherein the image displayed by the screen (17/18) is visible to the user through the chin window.
Lacroix does not teach a system for adjusting a focal distance of the image displayed to the user at the designated eye point of the simulator wherein the mirror spaced from the screen by a distance that is variable, and an adjustor configured to move the screen to adjust the distance between the screen and the mirror.
Murata teaches a control system (425) for a simulator for adjusting a focal distance of an image at a designated eye point of the simulator, comprising: a processor (CPU); and a memory storing instructions for execution by the processor (CPU) that, when executed, cause the processor (CPU; [0168]) to: generate the image for display by a screen (427), wherein the screen (427) is oriented such that the image is reflected by a mirror (428), through a window of the simulator and to the designated eye point; determine a simulated distance from the designated eye point to an object in the image; determine a focal distance for the image based on the simulated distance; determine a simulated size of the object based on the simulated distance; generate an instruction to cause an adjustor (drive unit, [0170]) to alter a distance between the screen (427) and the mirror (428) to achieve the focal distance; and adjust a size of the object in the image based on the simulated size ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195]).
Murata does not teach the viewing direction being downward, i.e., through a chin window.
APA teaches a simulator configured to simulate an aircraft (Fig. 1), wherein the simulator includes a chin window (18) positioned between the designated eye point and the screen (22), and wherein the image displayed by the screen (22) is visible to the user through the chin window (18; Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Murata with APA; because the device of Murata can adjust the size of the object thereby increase its usefulness.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lacroix and Murata consequently results in determining the simulated distance comprises one or more of: receiving a position of the designated eye point; determining a simulated position of the object relative to the designated eye point; and determining a distance between the position of the designated eye point and the simulated position of the object ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195] of Murata).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lacroix and Murata consequently results in the distance between the screen (427 of Murata) and the mirror (428 of Murata) correlates to the focal distance, and wherein the memory further comprises an instruction which causes the processor (CPU of Murata) to: move the screen (427 of Murata) to a first position that is a first distance from the mirror (428 of Murata) such that a planar image is displayed when the simulated distance is above a predetermined threshold (Fig. 3; [0192] of Murata).
Murata does not explicitly teach the planar image having focal distance is at infinity. It is well known in the art that at infinity all objects appear planar; hence it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention.
Murata further teaches “to determine an appropriate threshold in consideration of a balance between the reduction of the discomfort and the suppression of the processing load” ([0037]-[0041]).
Murata does not explicitly teach the predetermined threshold being about thirty feet.
Having the threshold being thirty feet is an issue of design choice. In other word, choosing the threshold is a matter of the designer of the system choosing the acceptable comfort level in viewing the image.
Lacking criticality to the functioning of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to choose the predetermined threshold to be about thirty feet.
Regarding claim 18, Lacroix teaches a method of displaying an image to a user (19) in simulator configured to simulate an aircraft with a chin window (Fig. 3 and 4), where the system generates the image which simulates a view outside the aircraft, wherein the chin window is positioned between the designated eye point (of user 19) and a mirror (12/13) such that the image displayed by the screen (17/18) is visible to the user (19) through the chin window (Fig. 3 and 4).
Murata teaches a method (Fig. 1-25 of Marata) for adjusting a focal distance of an image at a designated eye point (E of Marata), comprising: generating an image for display by a screen (427; Fig. 2 and 8 of Marata), wherein the screen (427 of Marata) is oriented such that the image is reflected by a mirror (428 of Marata) to the designated eye point (E of Marata); determining a simulated distance between the designated eye point (E of Marata) and a simulated position of an object in the image; determining a focal distance for the image based on the simulated distance; determining a simulated size of the object based on the simulated distance; generating an instruction to cause an adjustor (drive unit of Marata) to alter a distance between the screen (427 of Marata) and the mirror (428 of Marata) to achieve the focal distance; and adjusting a size of the object in the image based on the simulated size ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195] of Marata).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lacroix with Murata; because it allows adjusting the position of the image to improve viewing experience.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lacroix and Murata consequently results in a surface of the screen (17/18 of Lacroix) facing the mirror (12/13 of Lacroix) is convex (Fig. 3 and 4 of Lacroix) and moving the screen (427 of Murata) away from the mirror (428 of Murata) to a first position that is a first distance from the mirror (428 of Murata) such that a planar image is displayed when the simulated distance is above a predetermined threshold; and moving the screen (427 of Murata) toward the mirror (428 of Murata) to a second position that is a second distance from the mirror (428 of Murata) such that the focal distance is less than infinity when the simulated distance is below the predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance ([0168]-[0170], [0173], [0174], [0190]-[0195] of Murata).
Murata does not explicitly teach the planar image having focal distance is at infinity. At infinity, stereoscopic depth perception essentially vanishes because the eyes' convergence angle becomes parallel, reducing binocular disparity to zero; objects at infinity appear flat. It is well known in the art that at infinity all objects appear planar; hence it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacroix in view of Kobayashi and in further view of Inoue (US 20220146818 A1).
Regarding claim 9, neither Lacroix, Kobayashi nor Murata teaches the adjustor (20, 22 of Kobayashi) comprises a stop to prevent the screen (12 of Kobayashi) from contacting the mirror (14 of Kobayashi).
Inoue teaches a stop (60, 65) to prevent the screen (427) from contacting the mirror (428; Fig. 4 and 6; [00115]-[0132]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lacroix and Kobayashi/Murata with Inoue; because it blocks sun light from entering the projector shortening the life of the projector.
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacroix in view of Murata and in further view of Moisan (US 20220319349 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 16, neither Lacroix nor Murata teaches determining the simulated distance comprises determining a simulated height of the aircraft above terrain.
Moisan teaches determining a simulated height of the aircraft above terrain ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lacroix and Murata with Moisan; because it improves user’s experience.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacroix in view of Kobayashi and in further view of Moisan.
Regarding claim 22, neither Lacroix nor Kobayashi teaches the first image includes a first object and the second image includes a second object corresponding to the first object, wherein the variable collimation display system is operable to align the second object with the first object, and wherein the primary display system and the variable collimation display system change simulated sizes of the first object and the second object as a simulated height of the aircraft above the ground changes.
Moisan teaches the first image includes a first object and the second image includes a second object corresponding to the first object, wherein the variable collimation display system is operable to align the second object with the first object ([0028], [0050]-[0052]), and wherein the primary display system and the variable collimation display system change simulated sizes of the first object and the second object as a simulated height of the aircraft above the ground changes ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Lacroix and Kobayashi with Moisan; because it improves user’s experience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1-16 and 18-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments of claims 1, 13, 18, 21 and addition of claim 22.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights