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 .
Reissue Applications
This application seeks to reissue US Patent No. 11,039,112. In an amendment filed 08/10/2026, the applicant has amended claim 1. Claims 4-10 were canceled previously. Claims 1-3 are pending.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions. For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,039,112 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant’s Response to the Previous Office Action
The previous non-final Office action (NFOA) objected to the application under 37 CFR 1.173 for failing to include an adequate explanation of support for claim amendments. See NFOA at 3. The applicant has provided an explanation of support for amendments with the recent response, and this objection is withdrawn.
The NFOA also included rejections under §§ 112(a), 112(b), and 251. See NFOA at 3-7. The recent amendment overcomes these issues, and these rejections are withdrawn.
Despite the claim rejections, claims 1-3 were previously indicated as reciting allowable subject matter. See NFOA at 7-8. In the recent response, the applicant has amended the claims to alter their scope. In light of the change in claim scope, prior art rejections are made below.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, US 20180157036, in view of Joseph, US 20160266479, and further in view of Thornley, US 20140257828.
Claim 1: Choi discloses a head up display apparatus configured to display a video in a display region visually recognized through a windshield from a driver's seat of a vehicle (Fig. 9, Fig. 20, and ¶¶ 442-445), the head up display apparatus comprising:
a receiver configured to acquire vehicle information detected by the vehicle (¶¶ 46 and 475 – vehicle information detected by the vehicle, including current speed, inter-vehicle distance, etc., is acquired by the HUD unit);
a central processing unit (CPU) configured to control the display of the video (¶¶ 466 and 471 – controller 801 controls position and content of video information that is displayed by the HUD);
a video display apparatus configured to generate the video (¶ 132 – a projecting module is a display apparatus to generate the video signal. As shown in Figures 25-32, and as descried in ¶ 466, the image content that is displayed by the HUD is a non-static visual image, thus is video); and
a storage unit configured to store information (¶ 265).
Choi does not disclose that the CPU performs a normal operation when it is determined that no apparatus fault is present based on apparatus information which is information used when determining the apparatus fault acquired by the receiver, determines whether the apparatus fault is present or not when it is determined that a preset time has elapsed from a previous determination, detects the apparatus fault, preventing the video from being displayed in the display region while continuing operation of the head up display apparatus, and changing the display of the display region.
Joseph discloses a system that:
performs a normal operation when it is determined that no apparatus fault is present based on apparatus information which is information used when determining the apparatus fault acquired by the receiver (If no fault is detected with the projector, normal operations continue. See Fig. 12 steps 404, 406, and 408),
determines whether the apparatus fault is present or not when it is determined that a preset time has elapsed from a previous determination (After a previous determination of no fault, another determination is made after waiting a predetermined amount of time. Fig. 12: 408),
detects the apparatus fault, and prevents the video from being displayed in the display region while continuing operation of the display apparatus, and changes the display of the display region (When a fault is detected, video from the projector is prevented from being displayed by a shutter that blocks the output of the projector. ¶ 66-67. This is performed “while continuing operations” of the unit, as the device remains operational while its projected image is blocked. ¶ 71. This changes the display of the display region, when that language is understood in light of the specification, which describes similarly changing the display by blocking the output of the HUD projector. See the ‘112 patent Fig. 14B and its description).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi’s HUD with these teachings in Joseph. The POSITA would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “prevent unwanted projection of an image” when the projector is malfunctioning. See Joseph ¶ 67.
Choi-Joseph does not disclose determine how to change the display of the display region by selecting one of preventing the video from being displayed in the display region while continuing operation of the head up display apparatus and performing a shutdown process of the head up display apparatus including generating a flag indicating that the shutdown process has been performed on the apparatus and storing the flag in the storage unit, and changing the display based on the selection; wherein if it is confirmed that the flag is stored in the storage unit when the head up display apparatus is started, the CPU performs, before an initial operation, a self-diagnosis to confirm that there is no apparatus fault, and then performs the initial operation.
Thornley discloses performing a shutdown process of a display apparatus including generating a flag indicating that the shutdown process has been performed on the apparatus and storing the flag in a storage unit, and changing the display based on the selection (When an over-temperature event is detected, the apparatus is shut down. ¶¶ 18, 35, and 44-45. When the thermal shutdown procedure occurs, event information (i.e., a flag) is stored in BIOS. ¶ 45.); wherein if it is confirmed that the flag is stored in the storage unit when the display apparatus is started, its CPU performs, before an initial operation, a self-diagnosis to confirm that there is no apparatus fault, and then performs the initial operation (When the device is shut down due to a thermal event, a flag is stored in the BIOS to reflect this. ¶¶ 44-45. The BIOS is polled for flags on reboot (i.e., on start-up). ¶ 31. If a flag is detected, a diagnostic test is run. ¶¶ 30 and 33-34. When this test does not fail, indicating that there is no apparatus fault, the apparatus operates normally, therefore it performs an initial operation. ¶¶ 7-10 and 34; Fig. 2.).
It would have been obvious to modify Choi-Joseph with these teachings in Thornley, the motivation being to provide Choi's device with the ability to safely adapt to and diagnose over temperature events (see Thornley ¶¶ 3-4 and 10) and confirm the presence or absence of this fault type upon future startups, thereby ensuring apparatus health. When Choi's HUD is modified in this manner, its power is cut off in response to thermal failure event. This meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of "display content is changed due to the apparatus fault" when that feature is understood in light of the '112 patent at 10:35-11:10.
Joseph shows that responding to a fault may include either closing the shutter or shutting the projector off. See Joseph ¶ 71. Joseph does not describe that a selection between these two options is made in order to determine how to respond to a detected fault. But the POSITA would have found suggestion to do so in Thornley, which, in combination with Choi and Joseph, would have suggested responding differently to different types of faults: selecting to block the output of the projector in response to certain minor faults, as in Joseph, or selecting to shut down the device in response to an over-temperature event, as in Thornley.
The POSITA would have concluded that different fault types would be best addressed in different ways. For example, Joseph discusses that the system detects “dust, dirt, and other particles” that cause “the projected image to be distorted or occluded.” Joseph ¶¶ 3 and 70. The POSITA would have concluded that covering the lens with Joseph’s shutter would have been the logical manner to address a minor fault such as a dirty lens. Shutting the unit off would have required more intervention and more down time while waiting for the unit to be powered back on. However, Thornley would have suggested to the POSITA that the best response to an over-temperature event would have been to power the unit off, because a thermal event such as described in Thornley risks physical damage to the unit, and powering the unit off would have been the ideal way to prevent this.
Therefore, when taken together, the Choi, Joseph, and Thornley references would have suggested a HUD that covers its lens when certain minor faults are detected, and powers the HUD off when an over-temperature event is detected. Responding to different faults in this way would have enabled minor faults to be addressed with minimal intervention and down time, while thermal events are handled in a way that minimizes risk of damage to the HUD. This combination renders obvious the claimed invention, including the step of “determine how to change the display of the display region by selecting one of preventing the video from being displayed in the display region while continuing operation of the head up display apparatus and performing a shutdown process of the head up display apparatus.”
Claim 2: Choi-Joseph-Thornley discloses that on a condition that the CPU cuts off power supplied to the head up display apparatus as the display content changing process to change the display content of the video, the CPU outputs the flag (Power is shut off in response to a thermal event. Thornley ¶¶ 44-45. This meets this claim limitation when it is read in light of the ‘112 patent specification at 10:66-11:10. ).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Joseph, and Thornley in view of Yue, CN 106919239. An English translation of Yue has been previously provided.
Claim 3: Choi-Joseph-Thornley discloses that the CPU determines whether the apparatus fault is present or not by regularly acquiring the apparatus information while performing the display content changing process (System health is regularly monitored. Thornley ¶¶ 44-46.).
This system does not disclose: stops the display content changing process being performed when determined that the apparatus fault is not present.
However, Yue discloses a system which detects and responds to apparatus fault, and determines whether the apparatus fault is present or not by regularly acquiring the apparatus information while performing a thermal shutdown, and stopping the thermal shutdown being performed when determined that the apparatus fault is not present (Abstract - after thermal shutdown, device temperatures are monitored. If temperatures reach a safe level, the device is powered back on).
It would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Choi-Joseph-Thornley system with the teachings of Yue, the motivation being to enable an automatic restart when it is safe to do so (see Yue 11, which corresponds to ¶4 on pg. 3 of the provided English translation).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights