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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/17/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites that “the control system has a waveguide with a first coupling portion and a second coupling portion” and then recites that image data is captured and/or a display is produced “on the basis of light coupled into the waveguide by way of” one coupling portion and “coupled out of” the waveguide by way of the other coupling portion.
However, claim 1 does not specify what structure constitutes a “coupling portion” nor does it define objective structural boundaries for such portions. Additionally, the claim does not specify whether the “first” and “second” coupling portions are required to be physically distinct structures or whether they may be the same coupling structure. The claim also does not specify any requirement for the coupling portions placement, such that the claim does not provide a reasonably certain boundary on what configurations satisfy the “first coupling portion” and “second coupling portion” limitations.
As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably informed with reasonable certainty of the scope of the claimed “first coupling portion” and “second coupling portion” rendering claim 1 indefinite.
For purposes of examination “first coupling portion” and “second coupling portion” will be interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as any respective optical coupling structures or coupling regions associated with the waveguide that have the capacity to couple light into and or out of the waveguide. The first and second coupling portions are understood to be two coupling locations along a waveguide path that may be used for light injection and or extraction regardless of directionality.
Claims 2-13, 15-20 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected for the similar reasons as of claim 1.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, and 14 uses “and/or” to present alternatives. The use of “and/or” creates uncertainty as to which limitations are required and which are optional and therefore what subject matter falls within the scope of the claim. Examination of these claims will be examined in the alternative.
Applicant is advised to amend the claims to provide objective structural boundaries for the coupling portions and to clarify the alternatives by reciting the intended scope explicitly.
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 1-3, 5, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klug et al US 20220309759 A1 in view of Schwartze et al (Schwartze hereinafter US 11493758 B2)
As per claim 1
Klug teaches a control system for a door arrangement (Figure 3) an optical sensor arrangement (Figure 1 label 32 designated as camera ) an optical display arrangement (Figure 1 label 24 designated as light coupling device) and a control arrangement (Figure 1) wherein control arrangement monitoring image data captured by the optical sensor arrangement in a detection routine to ascertain the presence of a specified operator action and, in response to detection of the operator action (Paragraph [0057-0058]“ to verify their identity, a user can place their hand 30 on the measuring region 18 of the apparatus 10 …If the hand 30 of the user is placed on the measuring region 18, it is then possible for an image of the hand vein pattern, for example, to be captured and for the latter to be checked by the identification device 34) triggering an opening process and/or closing process of a motor-vehicle door of the motor- vehicle door arrangement (Paragraph [0058] “ If the hand 30 of the user is placed on the measuring region 18, it is then possible for an image of the hand vein pattern, for example, to be captured and for the latter to be checked by the identification device 34. If the predetermined comparison condition is met, it is possible for example to send a control signal to an unlocking mechanism 40 of the motor vehicle door, which can for example unlock a lock of the vehicle door”), control system has a waveguide with a first coupling portion and a second coupling portion (Figure 1 label 18 and 16 respectively) in that the optical sensor arrangement (Figure 1 Label 32 )captures the image data on the basis of light coupled into the waveguide(Figure 1 label 12) by way of the first coupling portion ( Figure 1 label 18) and coupled out of the waveguide by way of the second coupling (Figure 1 label 16) and/or in that the optical display device (Figure 1 label 24) produces the display on the basis of light coupled into the waveguide (Figure 1 label 12) by way of the second coupling portion (Figure 1 label 16) and coupled out of the waveguide by way of the first coupling portion (Figure 1 label 18 ).
Klug AG does not teach the optical display arrangement producing a display of an operating element relating to the specified operator action in the detection routine
Schwartze (US 11493758 B2) teaches the optical display arrangement producing a display of an operating element relating to the specified operator action in the detection routine. (Figure 7 and Column 12 lines 1-16 “Due to acquisition of a position of the eyes of the observer 50, for example by use of the first acquired image, and due to the acquisition of the object 52, for example by use of the second acquired image, for example, an intersection point 53 … This intersection point 53 is used for positioning a display of contents, for example, of a so-called augmented reality... A virtual image 54 thus results for the observer 50, which appears to be located in an image plane perceptible by the observer outside the pane 12. However, an image can also be displayed on the side of the observer 50. Multiple different image planes may be implemented.”
Accordingly a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to modify Klug’s door arrangement control system to additionally have the optical display arrangement produce a display of an operating element relating to the specified operator action in the detection routine by incorporating Schwarte’s teaching of determining an intersection point based on acquired images (eye position and object acquisition ) and using that intersection point for positioning a display of contents (augmented virtual reality image 54 in selectable image planes). Schwartze provides the foundation for a optical display driven technique for presenting user relevant action dependent content in a controllable image plane that can be integrated into Klug’s waveguide based optical system. This is done so that during the operator action detection routine, the system can present an associated operating element content to an appropriate perceived location for the observer. This enables the control system to provide contextual action based visual guidance and feedback in a selectable image plane. This improves usability and clarity of the operator interaction during the detection routine while preserving Klug’s existing waveguide coupling architecture for sensing and door unlock control.
As per claim 2
Klug and Schwartze cover the previously rejected claim limitations of claim 1. Please see claim 1
Klug teaches the control system as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that wherein the first and/or the second coupling portion has or have at least one holographic optical element. ( Paragraph [0044] “ the carrier medium 12 can comprise two glass plates which serve as light guides and which form the capping layers of the carrier medium. The core of the carrier medium enclosed by the two glass plates may have a holographic element 14…he carrier medium 12 can comprise an output coupling region 16 and a measuring region 18…”)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed
Would have furthered the Klug/Schwartze pipeline to include Klug’s concept of having at least one of the coupling portions (Klug’s carrier medium) have a holographic optical element. Using a holographic optical element in the coupling portions provides a compact and integrated way to perform the needed coupling and decoupling functions within the light guide while preserving a thin transparent carrier medium suitable for vehicle door window integration and reliable optical operation during the processes of sensing and display.
As per claim 3
Klug and Schwartze cover the previously rejected claim limitations of claim 1. Please see claim 1
Klug teaches the control system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the control arrangement triggers the detection routine in response to completion of a successful authentication check on the operator (Paragraph [0058] “ If the hand 30 of the user is placed on the measuring region 18, it is then possible for an image of the hand vein pattern, for example, to be captured and for the latter to be checked by the identification device 34. If the predetermined comparison condition is met, it is possible for example to send a control signal to an unlocking mechanism 40 of the motor vehicle door, which can for example unlock a lock of the vehicle door.”)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to further the Klug/Schwartze pipeline to include Klug’s concept of performing an authentication check by capturing an image of the user’s biometric feature and checking it with an identification device only when the predetermined comparison condition is met preceding to output a control signal to the unlocking mechanism for the door. In this way Klug provides a concrete control flow where the systems operative processing is conditioned on completion of a successful authentication check. This directly supports using authentication success as the trigger condition for the detection routine associated with subsequent door control. Conditioning the detection routine on a completion of a successful authentication check improves functional reliability and trust of the control workflow by ensuring that subsequent door control actions are initiated only when the operator has been verified by the identification device thereby reducing unintended activations and aligning the systems operation with an authenticated user interaction sequence.
As per claim 5
Klug and Schwartze cover the previously rejected claim limitations of claim 1. Please see claim 1
Klug teaches the control system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the specified operator action includes the operator completing a specified operator gesture (Paragraph [0057] “ to verify their identity, a user can place their hand 30 on the measuring region 18 of the apparatus 10, wherein by way of the above-described” The presentation of the user’s hand is being read as a “specified operator gesture”)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to further the Klug/Schwartze pipeline to include Klug’s concept of initiation of the identity verification interaction is done by the user deliberate action of presenting their hand on the measuring region to enable capture of the biometric image data used for check. Under a broad reasonable interpretation, the presentation of the hand constitutes a completed specified operator gesture in the context of the detection routine since it is a physical action performed by the operator to trigger the systems image capture and check workflow. Treating the hand presentation as a specified operator gesture allow for a clear, simple and consistent user interaction that reliably initiates the detection authentication pipeline. This improves usability by reducing ambiguity about how the operator should interact with the system to start the routine.
As per claim 10
Klug teaches A motor-vehicle door arrangement having a motor-vehicle door and a control system as claimed in claim1 , wherein the waveguide of the control system is at least partially integrated in a window of the motor-vehicle door (Figure 3, Paragraph [0058]: “ FIG. 3 illustrates a further exemplary embodiment of the apparatus 10. In this exemplary embodiment, the apparatus 10 can be integrated into a window pane 38 of the motor vehicle.”)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to have furthered the Klug/Schwartze pipeline to include Klug’s concept of a vehicle door window implementation in which the device (which includes the medium carrier used for coupling and guiding light) is integrated into a window pane of the motor vehicle. This provides an explicit integration location for the same waveguide-based sensing/coupling architecture used in the Klug/Schwartze modified system. This makes the window installation a directly taught configuration rather than n arbitrary relocation. Integrating the waveguide into the door window pane improves integration and packaging reduction by embedding the optical coupling and sensing display interface within an existing transparent structural element of the door. This eliminates the need for separate housings or external modules while maintaining a consistent operator interaction zone at the door.
As per claim 14
Claim 14 is the method claim of claim 1 and is subsequently rejected under the same grounds. The prior arts’ system and modified workflow performs the claimed steps during operation; thus, the method is taught by the same disclosures used for the corresponding system claim.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whinnery et al (Whinnery hereinafter US 10249088 B2) in view of Popovich et al (Popovich hereinafter WO 2017060665 A1 "WAVEGUIDE DISPLAY").
As per claim 1
Whinnery teaches a control system for a motor vehicle door arrangement (Fig 1 label 114), the control system comprising an optical sensor arrangement (column 8 line 38: “device 304 can include imaging devices (e.g., optical sensors, cameras) to capture images”), an optical display arrangement (Column 8 line 2 a display 305 of the output device 304 displays a graphic model 308 of the vehicle 102 projected in front of the user”) and a control arrangement (Column 1 line 50 :“the vehicle command module identifies one or more vehicle commands based on the gestures relative to the graphic model”) the control arrangement monitoring image data captured by the optical sensor arrangement in a detection routine to ascertain the presence of a specified operator action (Column 15 line 59 “processing images received from one or more imaging devices, the images including gestures relative to the graphic model.”) in response to detection of the operator action, triggering an opening process and/or closing process of a motor-vehicle door (column 1 line 51 “ …vehicle commands based on the gestures…” and Column 11 line 51 “vehicle command includes… front vehicle door and an action of open” ), the optical display arrangement producing a display of an operating element relating to the specified operator action in the detection routine( Column 15 line 63 “capture images of gestures in relation to the graphic model 308 displayed” )
Whinnery does not teach the control system having a waveguide with a first coupling portion and a second coupling portion , in that the optical sensor arrangement captures the image data on the basis of light coupled into the waveguide by way of the first coupling portion and coupled out of the waveguide by way of the second coupling portion, and/or in that the optical display device produces the display on the basis of light coupled into the waveguide by way of the second coupling portion and coupled out of the waveguide by way of the first coupling portion.
Popovich teaches a control system that has a waveguide with a first coupling portion and a second coupling portion in that the optical sensor arrangement captures the image data on the basis of light coupled into the waveguide by way of the first coupling portion and coupled out of the waveguide by way of the second coupling portion ( Fig 10A labels 202 and 204 , Paragraph [0007] “waveguide comprising … an input coupler, …and an output grating” Popovich’s waveguide includes an input coupler and an output grating making two distinct coupling structures) and/or in that the optical display device produces the display on the basis of light coupled into the waveguide by way of the second coupling portion and coupled out of the waveguide by way of the first coupling portion ( Popovich shows display via waveguide in Summary of invention: “ The input coupler is configured to receive collimated light from a display source and to cause the light to travel within the waveguide via total internal reflection” to couple in. Summary of invention “The output grating is configured to provide pupil expansion in a second direction different than the first direction and to cause the light to exit the waveguide” to couple out.)
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to modify Whinnery’s workflow (directed to gesture based door control interface where a system processes camera images of a user’s gesture relative to a displayed operating element (their graphic model) and triggers a door open command ) with Popovich’s waveguide display and sensing infrastructure because Popovich teaches coupling display light into a waveguide and out coupling it to the viewer. This modification gives Whinnery a practical way to present operating element through a thin light guided optical structure rather than a conventional display. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because using Popovich’s waveguide coupled input/output structures to present Whinnery’s operating element allows for a more compact and plausibly see through display path that would in turn be less packaging and bulk. A person of ordinary skill in the art would see that modification could be done while still maintaining Whinnery’s image-based gesture detection and door opening workflow.
As per claim 2
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1's 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection
Popovich teaches a control system wherein the first and or the second coupling portion have at least on holographic element (Second paragraph of page 16 “The input grating, fold grating and the output grating are holographic gratings, such as a switchable or non-switchable SBG…”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time this invention was effectively filed to extend the Whinnery/Popovich modified pipeline to include Popovich concept of having at least one coupling portion be a holographic grating because it gives Whinnery a concrete optical implementation for presenting the operating element through a light guided structure. Doing this enables efficient input light coupling of the display into waveguide which improves integration and flexibility for showing the operating element without changing Whinnery’s gesture to camera based detection and door actuation.
As per claim 3
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1's 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection
Whinnery teaches the control arrangement triggers the detection routine in response to completion of successful authentication check on the operator (Column 1 line 50 “ vehicle command module identifies one or more vehicle commands based on the gestures “ and Column 13 line 37 “FOB 152 can be used for authentication with the vehicle…upon authentication, the vehicle command module 150 verifies the one or more vehicle commands for execution based on sensor data from the vehicle, as discussed above.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to further extend the Whinnery/Popovich pipeline with Whinnery’s concept of user authentication triggering the detection routine because Whinnery teaches that gating the vehicle commands with authentication check provides a concrete security trigger to enable gesture executable commands only when an authorized operator is present. This mitigates unauthorized vehicle commands as well as inadvertent actuations.
As per claim 4
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 3’s 103 rejection. Please see claim 3’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery further teaches the control arrangement triggers the authentication check in response to sensing that the motor vehicle door arrangement is being approached by the operator (Column 13 line 41 “when the key FOB 152 is within a predetermined range of the vehicle, the passive entry system 126 can authenticate the key FOB 152.” and Column 13 line 51 “when the output device 132 is within a predetermined range of the vehicle 102, the passive entry system 126 can authenticate the output device 152”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time this invention was effectively filed to incorporate Whinnery’s authentication of the key FOB and or output device via a predetermined range gating the detection routine (gesture-based vehicle commands) into the previously modified Whinnery/Popovich workflow. This added augmentation preauthorizes the system before the detection routine runs which reduces latency when the user attempts the action, limits gesture processing to authenticated contexts and reduces unnecessary sensing/display activity when no operator is present and or approaching
As per claim 5
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1's 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches the specified operator action includes the operator encroaching into a specified triggering area and or the completion of a specified operator gesture (Column 1 line 48 “The gesture module processes images…the images including gestures relative to the graphic model.” Column 8 line 63 “the user 312, moves his hand 318 in relation to the graphic model 316 thereby creating a swiping gesture in the direction of arrow 320”. Column 8 line 48 “gesture module 148 can determine the user's 302 interactions with the graphic model 308 based on the location of the user's hand 310 and the currently displayed graphic model“)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to have incorporated into the Whinnery/Popovich modified pipeline Whinnery’s concept of detecting user intent by processing image data that includes gestures relative to a displayed graphic model and determining user interactions based on the hand location relative to the model. This gives an objective visually bound interaction region and recognizable gesture patterns that can be reliably monitored and used to trigger door control commands. In the modified pipeline this would be done while Popovich’s waveguide-based display provides a practical way to present the operating element which will visually indicate where the interaction is to occur. Treating the user’s action as entry into a defined triggering area improves usability by constraining detection to an intended zone and reducing random spur detections. This enables a clearer operator guidance all while preserving the same underlying image based gesture detection and command triggering workflow.
As per claim 6
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1's 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches the control arrangement outputs acknowledgement information in response to detection of the operator action (Column 9 line 26 “the user 312 moves his hand 318 in relation to the graphic model 316 thereby creating a swiping gesture in the direction of arrow 320. The output device 314a shows an updated display of the graphic model 316, shown as graphic model 316a, on the display 315a” with the updated display of the graphic model being the acknowledgement. )
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to have further enhanced the Whinnery/Popovich pipeline to include Whinnery’s concept of having the control arrangement output updated graphic model to work as an acknowledgement to user in response to the detection of the designated action. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this because outputting an acknowledgement to the user once the gesture is detected allows for a more developed user-friendly interface. This mitigates repeat gesturing and gesture detection caused by the user error by letting the user know the gesture was not only detected and recognized but also responded to.
As per claim 8
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1's 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Popovich teaches the optical display arrangement is setup for outputting the display with an adjustable wavelength range ( Detailed description “at least one of the input, fold or output gratings may combine two or more spectral diffraction prescriptions to expand the spectral bandwidth “ and “color multiplexed grating may be used to diffract two or more of the primary colors”) and the first and or second coupling portion has or have at least one optical filter, so that the display is adjustable in dependence on the wavelength range of the light by way of the first and or second coupling portion (Detailed description “dichroic filters…between the input grating regions…to control color crosstalk.”)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to incorporate Popovich’s waveguide display features (multi wavelength selective filtering at the coupling regions) in the Whinnery/Popovich pipeline because this enhancement to the modified pipeline provides a straightforward way to tune the visible appearance of the display and or the detection sensor. This allows for users to have increased and improved visibility, contrast and reduced stray light. While continuously maintaining Whinnery’s underlying image based gesture detection and door actuation workflow.
As per claim 10
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1's 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Popovich teaches a motor vehicle door and a control system wherein the waveguide of the control system is at least partially integrated in a vehicle’s window (Detailed ,: ”…a dual expansion waveguide display according to the principles of the invention may be integrated within a window, for example, a windscreen-integrated HUD for road vehicle applications…”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to enhance the Whinnery/Popovich modified workflow to include Popovich’s concept of a having a waveguide integrated in a vehicle window and to implement that integration specifically in Whinnery’s motor vehicle door arrangement. Popovich explicitly teaches integrating the waveguide within a window for road vehicle applications which provides a concrete teaching that the waveguide may be incorporated into a transparent pane. Applying that teaching to Whinnery’s door arrangement yields a door window integrated optical concept while retaining Whinnery’s door control function. Integrating the waveguide into the door window allows the optical path for the operating element to be showcased through the doors transparent structure improving intuitive usability. This also yields less exposed hardware, cleaner and thinner installation while keeping the interface in a familiar operator facing surface associated with the door.
As per claim 11
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 10’s 103 rejection. Please see claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Popovich further teaches that light can be made to exit from the first surface or the second surface i.e. coupling out light from an inner side and or outer side (Abstract “The output grating…causes the light to exit the first waveguide from the first surface or the second surface”) and coupling in light from an inner side and or outer side via an input coupler receiving light from a display source (Summary of invention: “input coupler is configured to receive collimated light from a display source and to cause the light to travel within the waveguide via total internal reflection between the first surface and the second surface”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to incorporate Popovich’s concept of a waveguide outputting light from the first surface or the second surface and coupling in light from a surface into the previously modified Whinnery/Popovich workflow. This provides a foundational basis for a door arrangement to have a bi directional as well as bi sided interactive optical interface in the window of a motor vehicle door arrangement. Allowing for coupling from both sides of the window allows for the operating element or any other optical outputs to be visible from the users desired side of the doors window on a case-by-case agenda.
As per claim 12
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 10’s 103 rejection. Please see claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches a motor door vehicle arrangement has an electrical drive arrangement for the motorized adjustment of the motor vehicle door wherein the control arrangement activates the drive arrangement for performing the opening process and or the closing process in response to detection of the operator action (Figure : The flow of components in label 114, Column 5 line 41 “The computing device 114 can include a controller 118 with a processor (not shown). The movable partitions described above are shown schematically as part of the computing device 114 as movable partition 118. Each movable partition 118 can have a motor 120 for mechanically and electrically controlling the movable partition”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time this invention was effectively filed to incorporate Whinnery’s concept of the vehicle door having an electrical drive arrangement for motorized adjustment and to have the control arrangement activate that drive arrangement to perform the opening and closing process upon detection of operator action. Whinnery shows movable portions may be mechanically and electrically controlled by a motor and further teaches gestures may be detected generating an open door command and transmitting this request to the controller for execution. This modification yields obvious hands free door actuation. This reduces operator effort because the same gesture that initiates door function directly drives motorized adjustments rather relying on manual motion.
As per claim 14.
Claim 14 is the method claim of claim 1 and is subsequently rejected under the same grounds. The prior arts system performs the claimed steps during operation; thus, the method is taught by the same disclosures used for the corresponding system claim.
As per claim 15
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations of claim 3 previously rejected in claim 3’s 103 rejection. Please see claim 3’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery further teaches the optical display produces a display of operator information when the detection routine is triggered. Whinnery provides operator information via user and vehicle associated UI content on the display (Column 8 line 19 “the output device 132 includes storage devices 140, which can include a database of one or more graphic models, each graphic model associated with a vehicle and a user. Thus, in one embodiment, the gesture module 148 can display a list of vehicles (e.g., from the storage devices 140) to a user on the display 135”). Whinnery explains the authentication workflow is enabled “upon authentication” and the UI display is the user interaction surface, therefore operator information is produced during enabled detection/authentication routine.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the authenticated door interaction workflow so that when triggered shows operator information on the optical display because Whinnery teaches an authentication gated vehicle workflow and further teaches presenting user/vehicle associate information via the display. Displaying operator information at routine start improves interaction quality by immediately presenting user relevant information through the optical display. This reduces any ambiguity and helps the operator proceed with the intended action.
As per claim 16
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations of claim 3 previously rejected in claim 3’s 103 rejection. Please see claim 3’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches where in the control arrangement triggers authentication in response to sensing that the motor vehicle door arrangement is being approached by the operator by a proximity sensor and or optical sensor arrangement ( Column 13 line 41 “when the key FOB 152 is within a predetermined range of the vehicle, the passive entry system 126 can authenticate the key FOB 152.”), and wherein the authentication check is based on a biometric analysis of the operator and/or is based on the detection of an electronic key (Column 13 line 38 “ the key FOB 152 can be used for authentication with the vehicle”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed to further enhance the Whinnery/Popovich workflow with Whinnery’s concept of key FOB proximity user authentication and arrived at claim 16’s limitations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Whinnery’s concept into the previously modified workflow because the approach configured electronic key authentication strategy reduces unauthorized activation and decrease the user’s perception of latency by pre authorizing the system as the operator arrives while limiting further processing such as the gesture detection routine.
As per claim 17
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations of claim 1 previously rejected in claim 1’s 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches specified operator action includes the operator encroaching into a specified triggering area (Column 16 line 6 “The gesture module 148 can determine the user's 302 interactions with the graphic model 308 based on the location of the user's hand 310 and the currently displayed graphic model 308.”) and or completion of a specified gesture (Column 8 line 63 “...the user 312, moves his hand 318 in relation to the graphic model 316 thereby creating a swiping gesture…”), wherein the display if the operating element provides a visual depiction of the triggering area (Column 8 line 41-47
“to capture images of gestures in relation to the graphic model…determine X, Y and Z coordinates relative to the virtual environment (e.g., the graphic model 308) the specified operator gesture (Column 12 line 66 “hand 506 of a user (not shown) is carrying out a gesture in relation to the graphic model 504 in a direction shown by arrow 508”) and a closed state of the motor vehicle door arrangement (Column 9 line 20 “gesture module 148 can update the graphic model on the display 135 based on the gestures relative to the graphic model…graphic model is updated in real-time on the display” and Column 9 line 30 “graphic model 316a displays an updated graphic model of the vehicle 102 with the rear vehicle door open based on the gesture made relative to the graphic model “)
Accordingly at the time this invention was effectively filed a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further enhance the Whinnery/Popovich workflow to incorporate Whinnery’s defined operator actions (model defined trigger region, completion of a defined gesture) so that display of the operating element visually depicts these operator actions. This provides a solid UI mechanism for visually guiding the operator’s action and confirming door state while Popovich supplies an implementation pathway for presenting the operating element via waveguide coupling in a vehicle context. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do this because the operator gets a clear visually solidified guidance and state feedback. This reduces failed and ambiguous contactless actions and augments operating convenience and user confidence without changing the door control logic pathway.
As per claim 18
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1’s 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches the control arrangement outputs acknowledged information by the optical display arrangement (Column 9 line 20 “the gesture module 148 can update the graphic model on the display 135 based on the gestures” and Column 9 line 28 “The output device 314a shows an updated display of the graphic model”) in response to detection of the operator action ( Column 9 line 33 “…gesture module 148 can update the graphic model on the display 135 based on the gestures relative to the graphic model” and column 9 line 30 “The graphic model 316a displays an updated graphic model of the vehicle 102 with the rear vehicle door open based on the gesture…” The updated display state is a visual confirmation to the operator that the gesture was recognized and acted upon i.e. acknowledgement output via display)
Accordingly at the time this invention was effectively filed a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate into the Whinnery/Popovich workflow Whinnery’s concept of configuring the system so that in response to detecting the operator action the control arrangement outputs acknowledgement information via the optical display arrangement because Whinnery teaches updating the displayed graphic model based on detected gestures which provides user feedback mechanism that confirms successful recognition of the operator action through the systems display. A person of ordinary skill in the art would see that providing acknowledgement on the display reduces repeated and failed gestures. This also increases user usability and user confidence by giving immediate visual cue and confirmation that the system detected the gesture and initiated a response.
As per claim 20
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 8’s 103 rejection. Please see claim 8’s 103 rejection.
Popovich teaches an optical filter being respectively assigned a holographic optical element ( “The present disclosure relates to displays including but not limited to near eye displays and more particularly to holographic waveguide displays.” Popovich places each dichroic filter between input grating regions of the waveguides “disposing dichroic filters 141, 142 between the input grating regions of the red and blue and the blue and green waveguides”. The dichroic filters are assigned in direction association with specific input grating (Holographic Optical Element) regions to control wavelength behaviors (color crosstalk) for those grating regions.
Accordingly, at the time this invention was effectively filed a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement claim 8’s wavelength dependent display adjustability such that an optical filter is respectively assigned to a holographic optical element because Popovich teaches using a dichroic optical filters in direct association with input grating (holographic) regions of waveguide displays to manage wavelength behavior leading to a stable way to make waveguide output depend on wavelength selection. This directly improves display reliability and clarity and enables more controlled wavelength selective behavior at the holographic optical element and coupling regions
Claim(s) 7, 13, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whinnery et al (Whinnery hereinafter US 10249088 B2) in view of Popovich et al (Popovich hereinafter WO 2017060665 A1 "WAVEGUIDE DISPLAY") in further view of Bihler et al (Bihler hereinafter, US 7586402 B2
As per claim 7
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 1's 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery and Popovich do not teach an obstacle detection routine in which a possible collision of the motor vehicle door in the opening process and or closing process with an object that is in the movement area and or is approaching the movement area is determined
Bihler teaches obstacle detection routine collision determination while opening doors (Column 4 line 49 “device for avoiding collisions when opening vehicle doors with a collision monitoring unit.” Which evaluates an object in an area and or approaching movement within an area (“Column 4 line 50”…monitoring unit includes an evaluation unit, which recognizes objects in the environment of the vehicle from sensor data of the environment sensors, and determines movement paths for the detected objects.” The system then computes probability space and detects “whether an overlapping exists. If an overlapping is detected, then a reaction signal indicating a danger of collision is produced.”(Column 2 line 16)) triggered in response to door operation (Column 5 line 17 “…the collision monitoring unit is activated as soon as… opening of a door is recognized.) and an action based on collision determination (Column 5 line 7 “…signal to the door locking unit, in order for example to prevent an opening of the door …”). Bihler effectively creates a framework for routine response to initiation of a door movement based on determination of collision risk with an object in or approaching movement area.
Accordingly at the time this invention was effectively filed a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to further modify the Whinnery/Popovich workflow with Bihlers concept (directed towards a collision monitoring unit for opening vehicle doors that recognizes objects from the environment sensors, determines object movement paths and collision risk as well as activation of said monitoring unit when door opening is recognized and preventing door opening when collision risk is detected) and arrived at the claim limitations of claim 7. A person of ordinary skill in the art would see that this modification improves operational safety and reliability by reducing the likelihood of collisions between environmental objects and the door while keeping the underlying operator action detection and waveguide-based display and sensing features of the base modified system.
As per claim 13
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 10’s 103 rejection. Please see claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches motorized adjustment of the motor vehicle door into a partly open or open position (Column 5 line 37 “Each movable partition 118 can have a motor 120 for mechanically and electrically controlling the movable partition” , Column 17 line 29 “vehicle command including a movable partition equal to front vehicle door and an action of open 90 degrees.”)
Whinnery does not specifically disclose locking of a motor-vehicle door lock assigned to the motor-vehicle door, motorized adjustment of the motor- vehicle door into a closed position and/or motorized assistance for an actuating force introduced manually into the motor-vehicle door is provided as a closing process
Bihler teaches locking of a motor vehicle door lock assigned to the motor vehicle door ( “the reaction signal can control the door lock, such that the corresponding door…is locked”) as a closing process.
Accordingly a person of ordinary skill the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have been motivated to further extend the Whinnery/Popovich/Bihler pipeline to include Whinnery’s concept of motorized adjustment of the vehicle door into open and partly open positions as the opening process and Bihler’s concept of a reaction signal electronically controlling the lock door mechanism to provide a known compatible mechanism that can be integrated so the opening/closing process includes at least one of the operations of locking/unlocking and or motorized adjustment. This extension to the modification allows for a fully featured automated door actuation sequence by enabling the controller to command motor driven door movement and manage the door’s lock state as part of the opening and closing processes. This increases convenience and functional wholeness of the door control operation without changing the core gesture detection and command logic.
As per claim 19
Whinnery ,Popovich and Bihler teach all claim limitations previously rejected in claim 7's 103 rejection. Please see claim 7’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery teaches an optical display that shows real time video of the vehicle and environment including obstacles and pedestrians (Column 9 line 41 “streams a real time video feed…to the…display”, Column 10 line 18 “the real-time video feed 410 provides a visual view of the vehicle 102, including obstacles, pedestrians, weather conditions, to the output device “)
Whinnery does not disclose an obstacle detection routine.
Bihler describes determining collision risk through a routine and producing a reaction and or warning signal when a collision danger is found ( Column 1 line 54 “ If the trajectory falls within a minimum separation to the pivot area of the vehicle door, a warning signal is emitted. “, Column 2 line 16 “If an overlapping is detected, then a reaction signal indicating a danger of collision is produced.”
Accordingly a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time this invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to further enhance the Whinnery/Popovich/Bihler workflow to incorporate Bihler’s reaction and warning signal indicating danger of collision risk as an output of Whinnery’s optical display as Whinnery already teaches providing visual information to the user via optical display as well as already having a real time virtual view of the environment and obstacles in said environment. This creates a straightforward user interface where Bihler’s obstacle detection results can be presented to the operator via Whinnery’s optical display during opening and closing door processes. Outputting the obstacle detection results on the display improves safety and usability giving the operator instant feedback they can make a decision and or action on that can prevent attempts at door movement when an object is obstructing the doors path, effectively avoiding collision.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whinnery et al (Whinnery hereinafter US 10249088 B2) in view of Popovich et al (Popovich hereinafter WO 2017060665 A1 "WAVEGUIDE DISPLAY") in further view of Popovich et al (Popovich hereinafter, US 10437064 B2)
Whinnery and Popovich teach all claim limitations of claim 1 previously rejected in claim 1's 103 rejection. Please see claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Whinnery does not teach coupling portions having multiple regions and its subsequent effect on selective coupling of light.
Popovich teaches (in US 10437064 B2) the first coupling portion has multiple coupling regions ( Popovich discloses multiple distinct coupling structures numbered as separate elements. Column 10 line 1 “The GRIN waveguides 251-253 are coupled into a waveguide 254 containing an image extraction grating by coupling means symbolically indicated by 1210-1212. “) , which have the effect of producing selective coupling in of light into a field of view assigned to the coupling region and/or selective coupling out of light from a field of view assigned to the coupling region (Column 10 line 4 “The output from the image extraction waveguide comprises collimated light in the field of view regions or tiles labelled 1213-1215” separate coupling structures i.e. “tiles” support regional optical routing which aligns with the limitation of selective coupling into a field of view assigned to a coupling region.)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at the time this invention was effectively filed would have found it obvious to further modify the Whinnery/Popovich workflow to include another Popovich’s concept from an adjacent application directed to coupling light through multiple coupling means to give output in discrete field of view regions or tiles, providing a usable framework for region to field of view partitioning of coupling dynamics that can be applied to the previous Whinnery/Popovich workflow. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Popovich’s adjacent concept (within US 10437064 B2) allows for more regulated fields of view and specific optical behavior. Such as reducing unintended visibility in an undesignated viewing space. This improves usability and fleshes out the waveguide interface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-8130. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5pm.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/SHANE WRENSFORD CODRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667