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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/05/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/084954 to Fujita et al. (hereinafter Fujita). Citations below will be to US PG Pub. 2021/0389596, the U.S. publication of the application.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Fujita discloses an image projection system (Figs. 1-3) comprising: a transmission reflection unit (window, Figs. 1-3) that includes a translucent member (window, Figs. 1-3); an image projection unit (image display unit 50 and mirror 53, Figs. 1-3) that irradiates an inner surface of the transmission reflection unit with light including image information to project a display image (dashed area 80, Fig. 3); an outside condition imaging unit (forward sensing device 30, Figs. 2A, 2D) that images, as an outside image, a condition outside the transmission reflection unit ([0049]); a display area specifying unit that specifies a display area where the display image is projected in the outside image (Fig. 2B, 3, 11; [0050]-[0053],[0084]-[0092]); an image determination unit that sets a determination area including the display area and recognizes and analyzes an image in the determination area in the outside image (Fig. 2B, 3, 11; [0050]-[0053],[0084]-[0092]); and an image adjustment unit that adjusts the image information based on an analysis result of the image determination unit (Fig. 2B, 3, 11; [0050]-[0053],[0084]-[0092]).
Regarding claim 2, Fujita discloses a plurality of the display areas and a plurality of the determination areas are provided (Fig. 3, 5C, 6).
Regarding claim 3, Fujita discloses the image determination unit acquires brightness information in the determination area, and the image adjustment unit adjusts a brightness of the image information based on the brightness information (Fig. 2B, 3, 11; [0050]-[0053],[0084]-[0092]). The halo overlaid on real-world object is necessarily an adjustment of brightness of the projected image.
Regarding claim 4, Fujita discloses the image determination unit acquires color tone information in the determination area, and the image adjustment unit adjusts a color tone of the image information based on the color tone information (Fig. 2B, 3, 11; [0050]-[0053],[0084]-[0092]). The halo overlaid on real-world object is necessarily an adjustment of color tone of the projected image.
Regarding claim 5, Fujita discloses the image determination unit analyzes a plurality of images in the determination area within a determination period (“a forward image is captured by an exterior camera 49 and is transmitted to the CPU 34 through a camera interface 33, and an object is detected by an image analysis unit 341” during vehicle movements; Figs. 3, 5C, 6, 9-10; [0049],[0082]).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita discloses the image determination unit sets the determination period based on the image information (duration of vehicle movement; Figs. 3, 5C, 6, 9-10; [0049],[0082]).
Regarding claim 7, Fujita discloses a condition acquisition unit that acquires an outside condition as condition information, wherein the image determination unit sets the determination period based on the condition information (“the distance detector 46, for example a Time of Flight (TOF) sensor or the like can be used”, Figs. 3, 5C, 6, 9-10; [0048]-[0049],[0082]). Object detection is an event having a duration.
Regarding claim 14, Fujita discloses the transmission reflection unit is a windshield of a vehicle (Figs. 2).
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 8, 9, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita, as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US Pat. No. 7,796,081 to Breed (hereinafter Breed).
Regarding claim 8, Fujita discloses: the outside condition imaging unit includes a visible light imaging unit that captures a visible light image with visible light (“a forward image is captured by an exterior camera 49 and is transmitted to the CPU 34 through a camera interface 33, and an object is detected by an image analysis unit 341”, Fig. 2D) and an light imaging unit that captures a light image with light, and the outside image includes the visible light image and the light image (“information acquisition unit 32 acquires distance information to a vehicle forward object (a vehicle, a sign, a pedestrian, and the like) by a distance detector 48 attached to the vehicle, and transmits the distance information to a CPU 34. In the distance detector 48, for example, a Time of Flight (TOF) sensor or the like can be used”; [0049]).
Fujita discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: infrared light imaging.
Breed discloses an infrared light imaging unit that captures an infrared light image with infrared light, and the outside image includes the visible light image and the infrared light image (Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide infrared imaging as taught by Breed with the system as disclosed by Fujita. The motivation would have been to utilize methods of high power optical systems (laser-based time of flight measurements) outside of a spectrum harmful to human eyes (col. 2, ll. 49-60).
Regarding claim 9, Fujita discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: infrared light imaging.
Breed discloses the infrared light imaging unit includes an infrared pulsed light source that emits the infrared light in a pulse form (Abstract), and the infrared light image is captured after a first delay time has elapsed from an end of light emission from the infrared pulsed light source (col. 35, ll. 60-64).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide infrared imaging as taught by Breed with the system as disclosed by Fujita. The motivation would have been to utilize methods of high power optical systems (laser-based time of flight measurements) outside of a spectrum harmful to human eyes (col. 2, ll. 49-60).
Regarding claim 11, Fujita discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: infrared light imaging.
Breed discloses the image adjustment unit superimposes at least part of the infrared light image on the image information (col. 89, ll. 40-62).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide infrared imaging as taught by Breed with the system as disclosed by Fujita. The motivation would have been to utilize methods of high power optical systems (laser-based time of flight measurements) outside of a spectrum harmful to human eyes (col. 2, ll. 49-60).
Regarding claim 13, Fujita discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: infrared light imaging.
Breed discloses the infrared light imaging unit and the visible light imaging unit are configured such that a visible light subpixel and an infrared light subpixel are mixed in a single image sensor (Abstract & col. 17, ln. 57-col. 18, ln. 45).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide infrared imaging as taught by Breed with the system as disclosed by Fujita. The motivation would have been to utilize methods of high power optical systems (laser-based time of flight measurements) outside of a spectrum harmful to human eyes (col. 2, ll. 49-60).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Breed, as applied to Claim 9, and further in view of US Pat. No. 10,628,950 to Price, et al (hereinafter Price).
Regarding claim 10, Fujita discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: infrared light imaging.
Price discloses the visible light image is captured after a second delay time has elapsed from an end of capturing of the infrared light image (col. 3, ll. 55-67 & col. 8, ln. 63-col. 9, ln. 56).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide sequential imaging as taught by Price with the system as disclosed by Fujita. The motivation would have been to reduce power consumption by controlling imaging durations (col. 3, ll. 55-67).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Breed, as applied to Claim 11, and further in view of JP 2000-19259 to Kojima (hereinafter Kojima).
Regarding claim 12, Fujita discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: infrared light imaging.
Kojima discloses the image determination unit extracts a feature area based on a difference between the visible light image and the infrared light image, and the image adjustment unit superimposes the feature area on the image information (“image that is obtained by subtracting a visible ray image that is picked up by the visible ray camera 14 from an infrared image that is picked up by the infrared camera 13 is displayed in (a display part 73 of) a head-up display 7 being provided at a window 6” & “by subtracting the obtained image, it is possible to display a person or a vehicle that is particularly problematic in safety with sufficient contrast with other things”, Abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to find differences in images and display information related to the differences as taught by Kojima with the system as disclosed by Fujita. The motivation would have been to display a person or a vehicle that is particularly problematic in safety with sufficient contrast with other things”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872