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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per claim 1, Applicant argues that Mourou fails to teach “a transparent display technology that allows for a background of the display to be transparent when displaying the first notification” because Mourou utilizes partially opaque circuitry and apertures to achieve transparency.
The Office respectfully submits that the claim does not recite any particular transparent display structure or mechanism, nor does the claim exclude partially opaque display components or transparency achieved through apertures or perforated regions. Rather, the claim broadly recites a transparent display technology that allows a background to remain visible while displaying a notification.
As acknowledged by Applicant, Mourou expressly teaches a windshield display having “visible transparency” during image display, including transparency achieved through arrangements of display circuitry and apertures providing approximately 20–50% transparency. Thus, Mourou teaches a display permitting visibility of the background while notifications/images are displayed, which reasonably meets the claimed limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Additionally, Applicant’s Specification at paragraph [0023] describes various exemplary transparent display technologies and further states that “other types of transparent display technologies that allow for a background of the display to be transparent when displaying a notification are possible” indicating the claimed limitation is not restricted to any particular display architecture such as transparent OLED or transparent LCD technology.
Claim Rejections - 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 and 3-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0197666 to Tanaka et al.; in view of US 2022/0097524 to Choi et al; in view of US 2019/0146216 to Mourou et al.; further in view of US 11,926,344 to Roy.
As per claim 1, Tanaka et al. teach a method, comprising:
receiving data associated with a condition perceived in an operating environment of an autonomous vehicle (paragraph 61, “detecting obstructions (pedestrians, vehicles, including bicycles and motorcycles, and other objects) present in the around vehicle 300”);
determining a first notification corresponding to the perceived condition (paragraph 7, “obtains information including the periphery of the vehicle and a state of the vehicle, and detects, as important information, information that is to be communicated to the driver preferentially over the obstruction information detected by the obstruction detector”); and
causing the first notification to be displayed on a transparent display included in a windowed surface of the autonomous vehicle (Fig. 1, paragraph 59, display 110 outputs warning message onto windshield 310), wherein the first notification is displayed as a real image on the transparent display and is visible from within the autonomous vehicle and outside the autonomous vehicle (Fig. 1, paragraph 59, visibility through the windshield implies that the driver sees the image and the image is also at least partially visible from outside).
Tanaka et al. do not necessarily teach wherein the transparent display is configured to display the first notification on both sides of the transparent display, the real image from within and outside the autonomous vehicle.
Choi et al. teach wherein the transparent display is configured to display the first notification on both sides of the transparent display, the real image from within and outside the autonomous vehicle (Fig. 9, paragraph 129, notice that the turning signal notification image is visible from both inside and outside the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Tanaka et al., so that the transparent display is configured to display the first notification on both sides of the transparent display, the real image from within and outside the autonomous vehicle, for the purpose of ensuring operation safety.
Tanaka and Choi et al. teach
wherein receiving data associated with the perceived condition comprises:
receiving data associated with an object perceived in the operating environment (Tanaka, paragraph 61, “detecting obstructions (pedestrians, vehicles, including bicycles and motorcycles, and other objects) present in the around vehicle 300”); and
receiving data associated with a vehicle intention including one or more automated driving actions to be performed by the autonomous vehicle responsive to perception of the object (Tanaka, paragraph 7, “obtains information including the periphery of the vehicle and a state of the vehicle, and detects, as important information, information that is to be communicated to the driver preferentially over the obstruction information detected by the obstruction detector”; paragraph 68, Vehicle controller 160 controls vehicle 300 based on the information output from obstruction detector 130, vehicle/driver state sensor group 150, and so on. Vehicle controller 160 is, for example, an advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) or an autonomous driving system. Vehicle controller 160 obtains information pertaining to the speed of vehicle 300, information pertaining to autonomous driving, information pertaining to the states of other vehicles in the periphery of vehicle 300, and the like, and controls the speed, steering angle, and the like of vehicle 300.”);
determining a second notification corresponding to the perceived condition (Tanaka, Fig. 1, paragraph 59, visibility through the windshield implies that the driver sees the image and the image is also at least partially visible from outside, paragraph 106, “Notification image G may also be displayed such that the brightness thereof gradually increases. Text indicating the content of notification image G may also be displayed”, an image and its associated text may be displayed).
Tanaka and Choi et al. do not necessarily teach wherein the transparent display that uses a transparent display technology that allows for a background of the display to be transparent when displaying the first notification, wherein the transparent display comprises a transparent organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display or liquid crystal display (LCD) laminated between inner and outer glass layers of the windowed surface, wherein the first notification comprises a single visual communication that includes both the perceived condition and the vehicle intention.
Mourou et al. teach wherein the transparent display that uses a transparent display technology that allows for a background of the display to be transparent when displaying the first notification (paragraph 4), wherein the transparent display comprises a transparent organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display or liquid crystal display (LCD) (paragraph 5, “Each display circuit includes a discrete array of electronically-activated light elements, which may be in the nature of LED or LCD cells”) laminated between inner and outer glass layers of the windowed surface (Fig. 2), wherein the first notification comprises a single visual communication that includes both the perceived condition and the vehicle intention (paragraph 4, “an automotive-grade exterior/interior transparent display that is operable to communicate with the vehicle occupants as well as pedestrians, cyclists, and neighboring vehicles, while allowing occupants to look out of the vehicle”; paragraph 18, “identify information based on these monitored inputs that will be relayed to the vehicle occupants or to passing pedestrians, vehicles, etc., and determine a graphical representation of the selected information” paragraph 19, ”As a dual-sided display device, the front windshield unit 18 is capable of selectively displaying a first set of images superimposed within an occupant's forward-facing field of view through the front windshield 18, and selectively displaying a second set of images, similar or distinct from the first, that are readily decipherable by persons outside of the vehicle 10.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Tanaka and Choi, so that the transparent display that uses a transparent display technology that allows for a background of the display to be transparent when displaying the first notification, the transparent display comprises a transparent organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display or liquid crystal display (LCD) laminated between inner and outer glass layers of the windowed surface, wherein the first notification comprises a single visual communication that includes both the perceived condition and the vehicle intention, such as taught by Mourou et al., for the purpose of communicating information to both vehicle occupants and exterior pedestrians, cyclists and neighboring vehicles.
Tanaka, Choi and Mourou et al. do not necessarily teach to cause the second notification to be projected outside the autonomous vehicle onto a road surface in the operating environment.
Roy teaches to cause the second notification to be projected outside the autonomous vehicle onto a road surface in the operating environment (Figs. 17 and 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Tanaka, Choi and Mourou et al., to cause the second notification to be projected outside the autonomous vehicle onto a road surface in the operating environment, such as taught by Roy, for the purpose of improving driving safety.
As per claim 3, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the object includes a vulnerable road user (Tanaka, paragraph 61, “detecting obstructions (pedestrians, vehicles, including bicycles and motorcycles, and other objects) present in the around vehicle 300”).
As per claim 4, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first notification includes an explicit communication of at least one of: the perceived condition; and the vehicle intention (Tanaka, paragraph 7, “obtains information including the periphery of the vehicle and a state of the vehicle, and detects, as important information, information that is to be communicated to the driver preferentially over the obstruction information detected by the obstruction detector”).
As per claim 5, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the method of claim 1, comprising determining a first message including text; and displaying the first message in an orientation readable from outside the autonomous vehicle (Choi. Fig. 2, paragraph 81).
As per claim 6, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the method of claim 1, comprising: determining a second message including text; and displaying the second message in an orientation readable from inside the autonomous vehicle (Tanaka, paragraphs 76-79, see also paragraph 106, “If notification image G is text information, the text may be displayed in bold”).
As per claim 7, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the method of claim 1, wherein causing the first notification to be displayed on the transparent display comprises causing one or a combination of text and symbols to be displayed in an augmented reality environment on the transparent display (Tanaka, Figs. 1 and 10-14, paragraphs 59 and 76-79).
As per claim 8, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a second notification corresponding to the perceived condition; and
causing the second notification to be displayed on the transparent display, wherein the second notification is displayed as a real image on the transparent display and is visible from within the vehicle and outside the autonomous vehicle (Tanaka, Fig. 1, paragraph 59, visibility through the windshield implies that the driver sees the image and the image is also at least partially visible from outside, paragraph 106, “Notification image G may also be displayed such that the brightness thereof gradually increases. Text indicating the content of notification image G may also be displayed”, an image and its associated text may be displayed); or causing the second notification to be projected outside the autonomous vehicle onto a road surface in the operating environment.
As per claim 9, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 1 and it is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 10, it comprises similar limitations to those in claim 2 and it is therefore rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 11, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the dual view display system of claim 10, wherein the one or more automated driving actions include at least one of: brake control; throttle control; steering control; suspension control; transmission control; and drive state control (Tanaka, paragraph 68).
As per claim 12, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the dual view display system of claim 10, wherein the object includes another road user in the operating environment outside the autonomous vehicle (Tanaka, paragraph 61, “detecting obstructions (pedestrians, vehicles, including bicycles and motorcycles, and other objects) present in the around vehicle 300”).
As per claim 13, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the dual view display system of claim 12, wherein the other road user includes a vulnerable road user (Tanaka, paragraphs 61 and 123, “detecting obstructions (pedestrians, vehicles, including bicycles and motorcycles, and other objects) present in the around vehicle 300”).
As per claim 14, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the dual view display system of claim 9, wherein the first notification includes at least one of: a first message including text displayed in an orientation readable from outside the autonomous vehicle; and a second message including text displayed in an orientation readable from inside the autonomous vehicle (Tanaka, paragraphs 76-79, see also paragraph 106, “If notification image G is text information, the text may be displayed in bold”).
As per claim 15, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the dual view display system of claim 14, wherein the first and second messages are a same message (Fig. 9).
As per claim 16, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the dual view display system of claim 9, wherein the first notification comprises one or a combination of text and symbols (Tanaka, paragraphs 76-79, see also paragraph 106, “If notification image G is text information, the text may be displayed in bold”).
As per claim 17, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the dual view display system of claim 9, wherein in causing the first notification to be displayed on the transparent display, the system displays the first notification in an augmented reality environment on the transparent display (Tanaka, Fig. 1).
As per claim 18, Tanaka, Choi, Mourou and Roy et al. teach the dual view display system of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the system to: determine a second notification corresponding to the perceived condition; and cause the second notification to be displayed on the transparent display, wherein the second notification is displayed as a real image on the transparent display and is visible from within the vehicle and outside the autonomous vehicle (Tanaka, Fig. 1, paragraph 59, visibility through the windshield implies that the driver sees the image and the image is also at least partially visible from outside, paragraph 106, “Notification image G may also be displayed such that the brightness thereof gradually increases. Text indicating the content of notification image G may also be displayed”, an image and its associated text may be displayed).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,926,344 to Roy; in view of US 2021/0197666 to Tanaka et al.; in view of US 2022/0097524 to Choi et al; in view of US 2019/0146216 to Mourou et al.
As per claim 21, Roy teaches an autonomous vehicle, comprising:
least one processor (column 1, lines 50-55, “The autonomous vehicle includes a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor”); and
a memory including instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the autonomous vehicle (column 6, lines 29-51) to:
receive sensor data (column 1, lines 50-55, “The autonomous vehicle includes a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor”) from one or more sensor on the autonomous vehicle;
perceive a condition based on the sensor data, wherein the condition includes another road user in an operating environment of the autonomous vehicle (column 7, lines 30-35, “The autonomous vehicle (AV) 10 includes a sensor 15 supported by the body 14 for detecting an object in a vicinity of the autonomous vehicle 10. The object may be a pedestrian or cyclist.”);
determine a vehicle intention of the autonomous vehicle including one or more automated driving actions to be performed by the autonomous vehicle responsive to the another road user (column 8, lines 50-55, “the AV 10 will act safely to avoid the pedestrian or cyclist or to stop or yield for the pedestrian or cyclist”); and
cause a second notification to be projected outside the autonomous vehicle onto a road surface in the operating environment, wherein the second notification includes a communication of both the perceived condition (Fig. 56, shape 60) and the vehicle intention (Fig. 56, STOP sign 286 is at least indirectly, a notification that the vehicle intends to go).
Roy does not necessarily teach to cause a first notification to be displayed on the transparent display, wherein the transparent display displays the first notification on both sides of the transparent display, the first notification is displayed as a real image on the transparent display as a real image using the transparent display, and wherein the real image is visible from within the autonomous vehicle and outside the autonomous vehicle.
Tanaka teaches to cause a first notification to be displayed on the transparent display (Fig. 1, paragraph 59, display 110 outputs warning message onto windshield 310), wherein the transparent display displays the first notification on both sides of the transparent display (Fig. 1, paragraph 59, visibility through the windshield implies that the driver sees the image and the image is also at least partially visible from outside), the first notification is displayed as a real image on the transparent display as a real image using the transparent display, and wherein the real image is visible from within the autonomous vehicle and outside the autonomous vehicle (Fig. 1, paragraph 59, visibility through the windshield implies that the driver sees the image and the image is also at least partially visible from outside).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Roy to cause a first notification to be displayed on the transparent display, wherein the transparent display displays the first notification on both sides of the transparent display, the first notification is displayed as a real image on the transparent display as a real image using the transparent display, and wherein the real image is visible from within the autonomous vehicle and outside the autonomous vehicle, such taught by Tanaka, for the purpose of improving driver safety.
Roy and Tanaka do not necessarily teach wherein the transparent display is configured to display the first notification on both sides of the transparent display, the real image from within and outside the autonomous vehicle.
Choi et al. teach wherein the transparent display is configured to display the first notification on both sides of the transparent display, the real image from within and outside the autonomous vehicle (Fig. 9, paragraph 129, notice that the turning signal notification image is visible from both inside and outside the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Tanaka et al., so that the transparent display is configured to display the first notification on both sides of the transparent display, the real image from within and outside the autonomous vehicle, for the purpose of ensuring operation safety.
Roy, Tanaka and Choi do not teach wherein the transparent display that uses a transparent display technology that allows for a background of the display to be transparent when displaying the first notification, wherein the transparent display comprises a transparent organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display or liquid crystal display (LCD) laminated disposed between inner and outer glass layers of the windowed surface, wherein the first notification comprises a single visual communication that includes both the perceived condition and the vehicle intention.
Mourou et al. teach wherein the transparent display that uses a transparent display technology that allows for a background of the display to be transparent when displaying the first notification (paragraph 4), wherein the transparent display comprises a transparent organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display or liquid crystal display (LCD) (paragraph 5, “Each display circuit includes a discrete array of electronically-activated light elements, which may be in the nature of LED or LCD cells”) laminated disposed between inner and outer glass layers of the windowed surface (Fig. 2), wherein the first notification comprises a single visual communication that includes both the perceived condition and the vehicle intention ((paragraph 4, “an automotive-grade exterior/interior transparent display that is operable to communicate with the vehicle occupants as well as pedestrians, cyclists, and neighboring vehicles, while allowing occupants to look out of the vehicle”; paragraph 18, “identify information based on these monitored inputs that will be relayed to the vehicle occupants or to passing pedestrians, vehicles, etc., and determine a graphical representation of the selected information” paragraph 19, ”As a dual-sided display device, the front windshield unit 18 is capable of selectively displaying a first set of images superimposed within an occupant's forward-facing field of view through the front windshield 18, and selectively displaying a second set of images, similar or distinct from the first, that are readily decipherable by persons outside of the vehicle 10.”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Roy, Tanaka and Choi, so that the transparent display uses a transparent display technology that allows for a background of the display to be transparent when displaying the first notification, the transparent display comprises a transparent organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display or liquid crystal display (LCD) laminated disposed between inner and outer glass layers of the windowed surface, wherein the first notification comprises a single visual communication that includes both the perceived condition and the vehicle intention, such as taught by Mourou et al., for the purpose of communicating information to both vehicle occupants and exterior pedestrians, cyclists and neighboring vehicles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, from 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached on (571) 272-7603. 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.
/JOSE R SOTO LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights