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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Regarding objections.
Applicant argues:
The Office Action states that a new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Applicant has amended the Title of the Invention in order to better reflect the claims.
Examiner replies that:
Withdrawn.
Applicant argues:
Claims 1-20 stand objected to because it is alleged "optical illusion image" does not meet the standard definition of the term. Independent claims 1 and 20 have been amended to recite "the generated optical illusion image is an image to be perceived as if a feature existed through optical illusion when viewed from the driver of the subject vehicle," which is explicitly supported by paragraph 100181 of the specification. In FIG. 2, "the peripheral detection device 21 detects a median strip as a feature around the subject vehicle," and the median strip is determined to be the "caution-required feature" because itimpacts traveling of the subject vehicle (Specification paragraph 10032]). An alert target feature (i.e., the protruding shape of FIG, 4) is displayed as an optical illusion image (i.e., a projected image of an object that does not exist, but is used as a meansto caution the driver) In this instance, the driver is instructed that a sharp turn exists and furtherthat a median strip exists. via display of the optical illusion image.
Examiner replies that:
Withdrawn.
Regarding 112(f).
Applicant argues:
Claim limitations "caution-required feature detector," "optical illusion image generator," "alert determiner" and "projection controller" have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions.
Examiner replies that:
Interpretation withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103.
Applicant argues:
Present Application or FIG. 6 Applicant respectfully submits that Lection fails to teach or suggest generating an optical illusion image having a different shape than_the solid shape of the caution-required feature, the generating being performed by an optical illusion image generator of the projection control apparatus, the generated optical illusion image is an image to be perceived as if a feature existed through optical illusion when viewed from the driver of the subject vehicle, as recited in independent claims 1 and 20. Instead, as acknowledged in the Office Action, Lection merely discloses projecting a "concentrated light beam from a projector 104 to a surface 116," which may include road markings such as "lines, dots, dashes, text, images" (Lection column 10, lines 54-67). However, Lection fails to disclose generating an optical illusion image has a different shape than the solid shape of the caution-required feature, the generating being performed by the processing circuit, the generated optical illusion image is an image to be perceived as if a feature existed through optical illusion when viewed from the driver of the subject vehicle. That is, Lection fails to disclose the projection of an optical illusion image as currently defined in independent claims 1 and 20.
Examiner replies that:
Applicant has amended the claims to change the scope since the previous action. The amendment(s) necessitate new ground(s) of rejection and are rejected in detail under the § 102/103 headings below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lection U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9969325 in view of Watanabe U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20180198955.
Regarding claim 1:
A projection control apparatus, comprising:
a processing circuit configured to: (Lection C14 L50-55 In some embodiments, electronic circuitry including, for example, programmable logic circuitry, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), or programmable logic arrays (PLA) may execute the computer readable program instructions by utilizing state information of the computer readable program instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry, in order to perform aspects of the present invention.)
detect a caution-required feature that is a feature with a solid shape that impacts on traveling of a subject vehicle, (Lection C3 L35-41 In an embodiment, the vehicle 102 may include any object detection device known in the art, such as, for example, radar, sonar, camera, or any combination thereof.) the feature including a structure on a road, a road surface in a particular state, or an object not installed on a road (Lection C7 L10-21 In another example, when a computing device determines that black ice is on a road or receives information regarding an area of black ice on the road, a projection of a cross hatch pattern may be used to show an area of the road that is covered with black ice. In another example, when a computing device determines that a pot hole is on a road or receives information regarding an area of a pot hole in a road, a projection of a cross hatch pattern may be used to show an area of a pot hole in a road.).
generate an optical illusion image having a different shape than the solid shape of the caution-required feature the generated optical illusion image is an image to be perceived as if a feature existed through optical illusion when viewed from the driver of the subject vehicle (Lection C10 L54-C11 L6 Projecting 340 may involve emitting a concentrated light beam from a projector 104 (FIG. 1) to a surface 116 (FIG. 1). In an embodiment, the projector 104 may be attached to a vehicle and be projecting 340 a laser on a surface 116 of a road to form one or more projected road markings. In another embodiment, the projector 104 may be attached to a stationary device and be projecting 340 a laser on a surface 116 of a road to form one or more projected road markings. In another embodiment, the projector 104 may be attached to one or more vehicles and one or more stationary devices which may coordinate projecting 340 a laser one a surface 116 to form one or more projected road markings. Projected road markings may include, for example, lines, dots, dashes, text, images, or any combination thereof. For example, projected road markings may indicate an outer boundary of a lane of a road. In another example, when a danger to one or more users of a vehicle is determined, a message to “Slow down to 30 MPH” may be projected on a surface of a road. In another example, a projection of a cross hatch pattern may be used to show an area of the road that is covered with black ice.) since the cross hatch pattern is an image with a different shape than the solid shape.
determine whether alerting the caution-required feature is necessary (Lection C3 L5-15 For example, when a danger to one or more users of a vehicle is determined)
and cause a projector to project the optical illusion image at a position corresponding to a position of the caution-required feature determined as requiring the alert (Lection C10 L54-C11 L6 Projecting 340 may involve emitting a concentrated light beam from a projector 104 (FIG. 1) to a surface 116 (FIG. 1). In an embodiment, the projector 104 may be attached to a vehicle and be projecting 340 a laser on a surface 116 of a road to form one or more projected road markings. In another embodiment, the projector 104 may be attached to a stationary device and be projecting 340 a laser on a surface 116 of a road to form one or more projected road markings. In another embodiment, the projector 104 may be attached to one or more vehicles and one or more stationary devices which may coordinate projecting 340 a laser one a surface 116 to form one or more projected road markings. Projected road markings may include, for example, lines, dots, dashes, text, images, or any combination thereof. For example, projected road markings may indicate an outer boundary of a lane of a road. In another example, when a danger to one or more users of a vehicle is determined, a message to “Slow down to 30 MPH” may be projected on a surface of a road. In another example, a projection of a cross hatch pattern may be used to show an area of the road that is covered with black ice.)
(Lection C7 L15-25 a projection of a cross hatch pattern may be used to show an area of the road that is covered with black ice.)
(Lection C7 L15-25 In another example, when a computing device determines that a pot hole is on a road or receives information regarding an area of a pot hole in a road, a projection of a cross hatch pattern may be used to show an area of a pot hole in a road.)
Lection does not teach shape overlays. In a related field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches:
generate an optical illusion image having a different shape than the solid shape of the caution-required feature (Watanabe [0139] On the contrary, the fallen object 114a, the depression 115a, and the fallen tree 116a are obviously dangerous obstacles on the road that disturb travelling of the own vehicle. Accordingly, it is preferable that the displaying outlines 114b to 116b thereof are displayed to indicate the highest risk, for example, in red from the beginning and/or with blinking and/or fluorescence to call attention of the driver at maximum.) since it creates an outline of the shape, which is a simplified 2D shape different than the actual solid 3D shape.
wherein processing circuit is configured to generate the optical illusion image as a protruding shape when the caution-required feature has a shape protruding from a road surface, and to generate the optical illusion image as a depressed shape when the caution-required feature has a shape depressed from a road surface (Watanabe [0139] FIG. 11B illustrates synthesized scenery in which displaying outlines 111b to 117b of the objects recognized by the travel environment recognition system 42 are superimposed on the front windshield 15 by the vehicle-use image display system 2. The center line 111a and the road shoulders 112a, 113a are a boundary of the road and display on the road. On the contrary, the fallen object 114a, the depression 115a, and the fallen tree 116a are obviously dangerous obstacles on the road that disturb travelling of the own vehicle. Accordingly, it is preferable that the displaying outlines 114b to 116b thereof are displayed to indicate the highest risk, for example, in red from the beginning and/or with blinking and/or fluorescence to call attention of the driver at maximum.) since the outline of depressions (pothole) and protrusions (tree, fallen object) will create an illusion of a protruding/depressed shape since it is an outline of a real object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use shape overlays as taught by Watanabe. The rationale for doing so would have been that it is a simple substitution of display appearance, where Lection marks obstacles with a hatch graphic, and Watanabe marks obstacles with an outline, where there are predictable results since both are displaying obstacles to a drive of a vehicle and it is merely an aesthetic change. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Watanabe with Lection to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 2:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection further teaches wherein the projector projects the optical illusion image onto a road surface (Lection C7 L10-21 In another example, when a computing device determines that black ice is on a road or receives information regarding an area of black ice on the road, a projection of a cross hatch pattern may be used to show an area of the road that is covered with black ice. In another example, when a computing device determines that a pot hole is on a road or receives information regarding an area of a pot hole in a road, a projection of a cross hatch pattern may be used to show an area of a pot hole in a road.).
Regarding claim 5:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection further teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to change the optical illusion image according to a type of the caution-required feature (Lection C7 L38-41 In an embodiment, a color of a projected line may indicate a road condition (e.g. red for rough road and/or blue for snow).).
Regarding claim 7:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection further teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to highlight the optical illusion image when recognition of a driver on the caution-required feature determined as requiring the alert is lower than a predefined threshold or when a rate of a part of the caution-required feature that has been determined as requiring the alert and cannot be visually recognized from the subject vehicle is higher than a predefined threshold (Lection C9 L29-50 Decision 310 may involve determining whether traditional road markings (e.g. painted lines) on a surface (e.g. a road) are visible to a driver and/or user of a vehicle. In an embodiment, decision 310 may be omitted so that subsequent steps (discussed below) are taken regardless of whether traditional road markings are visible or not. In an embodiment, the road markings application (FIG. 1) may perform decision 310 by providing instructions to a processor of a computing node. Decision 310 may be utilized such that subsequent steps (discussed below) are only taken when traditional road markings are not visible. For example, when traditional road markings are visible, the method 300 may end (decision 310, Yes). In another example, when traditional road markings are not visible, receiving location information may occur (decision 310, No). The road markings application may determine whether road markings are visible by, for example, receiving information from a camera or similar device. The camera or similar device may be attached, for example, to a vehicle and/or stationary device. The road markings application may analyze, for example, visual information provided by the camera or similar device to determine whether road markings are visible to a driver and/or user of a vehicle.).
Regarding claim 9:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection further teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to detect the caution-required feature based on position information of the subject vehicle and map data (Lection C9 L60-C10 L17 Location information may be used for one or more purposes, such as, for example, determining a size, location, speed, and/or acceleration of one or more vehicles, determining a size, type, and/or location of one or more road markings (e.g. selecting road marking location 330), and/or determining a size, type, and/or location of a stationary device. For example, a computing device attached to a vehicle may receive information from a camera attached to a vehicle. In an example, one or more navigation devices may be attached to a vehicle which may identify a location of the vehicle which may be combined with one or more map databases to determine a location of the vehicle with respect to a travelling environment. The traveling environment of the vehicle may be a region within proximity of the vehicle and may include, for example, one or more second vehicles, one or more stationary devices, one or more surfaces (e.g. road, soil, water, etc), or any combination thereof. In another example, a cloud computing device may receive GPS data from one or more vehicles. In another example, a computing device attached to a vehicle may obtain data from a camera, navigation device, and an accelerator attached to one or more vehicles.).
Regarding claim 10:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection further teaches further comprising a caution-required feature information storage to obtain caution-required feature from an infrastructure or a user device and store the caution-required feature information, the caution-required feature information including position information of the caution-required feature, wherein the caution-required feature detector detects the caution-required feature, based on position information of the subject vehicle and the caution-required feature information (Lection C9 L50-C10 L17 Location information may be used for one or more purposes, such as, for example, determining a size, location, speed, and/or acceleration of one or more vehicles, determining a size, type, and/or location of one or more road markings (e.g. selecting road marking location 330), and/or determining a size, type, and/or location of a stationary device. For example, a computing device attached to a vehicle may receive information from a camera attached to a vehicle. In an example, one or more navigation devices may be attached to a vehicle which may identify a location of the vehicle which may be combined with one or more map databases to determine a location of the vehicle with respect to a travelling environment. The traveling environment of the vehicle may be a region within proximity of the vehicle and may include, for example, one or more second vehicles, one or more stationary devices, one or more surfaces (e.g. road, soil, water, etc), or any combination thereof. In another example, a cloud computing device may receive GPS data from one or more vehicles. In another example, a computing device attached to a vehicle may obtain data from a camera, navigation device, and an accelerator attached to one or more vehicles.).
Regarding claim 11:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 10, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection further teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine that alerting the caution-required feature registered in the caution-required feature information storage is necessary (Lection C3 L5-15 For example, when a danger to one or more users of a vehicle is determined)
Regarding claim 13:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection further teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine that alerting the caution-required feature whose part or entirety is hidden by a visual obstruction and cannot be seen is necessary (Lection C6 L50-60 For example, poor weather conditions like rain or snow may make traditional markings (e.g. painted lines) on the marked lane 204 and the marked lane 209 difficult to see. In another example, weathering over time and/or poor maintenance may make traditional markings on the marked lane 204 and the marked lane 209 difficult to see. In another example, poor lighting conditions may make traditional markings on the marked lane 204 and the marked lane 209 difficult to see.). Further, (Lection C10 L35-45 In another example, the road marking application may determine that an obstruction (e.g. black ice, pot hole, obstacle, etc.) exists on the road and determine a location of the obstruction may be a location of a road marking (e.g. cross hatches) to accentuate the obstruction.) where the road is partially obscured by ice.
Regarding claim 14:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection further teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine whether alerting the caution-required feature is necessary, based on whether a weather condition around the subject vehicle is a weather condition causing low visibility (Lection C6 L50-60 For example, poor weather conditions like rain or snow may make traditional markings (e.g. painted lines) on the marked lane 204 and the marked lane 209 difficult to see. In another example, weathering over time and/or poor maintenance may make traditional markings on the marked lane 204 and the marked lane 209 difficult to see. In another example, poor lighting conditions may make traditional markings on the marked lane 204 and the marked lane 209 difficult to see.).
Regarding claim 20:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lection U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9969325 in view of Watanabe U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20180198955 and Tang U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20140267415.
Regarding claim 4:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection does not teach alert distance. In a related field of endeavor, Tang teaches: wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine that alerting the caution-required feature whose distance from the subject vehicle is smaller than or equal to a predefined threshold is necessary (Tang [0057] The road marking illumination controller 22 also controls the illumination patterns used for road marking objects especially for safety warning types of road markings. With reference to FIG. 10, an exemplary embodiment of the road marking illumination pattern used for vehicle safe spacing warning is illustrated and it is depicted by 800. In this example, a preceding vehicle 804 is in front of vehicle 14 in its driving direction. For vehicle 14, a safe spacing distance C.sub.s 820 is expected to be kept after the preceding vehicle 804. When the real vehicle spacing C.sub.c 824 is less than C.sub.s 820, a safety warning road marking object 808 is generated by the road marking illumination controller 22 at corresponding position after the preceding vehicle.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an alert distance as taught by Tang. The rationale for doing so would have been that it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results where Lection and Tang both project images onto the road to enhance safety, and Tang provides for additional features using distance, where there are predictable results since it is still a vehicle projecting an image to enhance safety merely using different determiners on when the project the image. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Tang with Lection in view of Watanabe to obtain the invention.
an illusion of a protruding/depressed shape since it is an outline of a real object.
Claim(s) 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lection U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9969325 in view of Watanabe U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20180198955 and Toyoda U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20180322783.
Regarding claim 12:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection does not teach adjusting based on driver alert customization. In a related field of endeavor, Toyoda teaches: further comprising an alert target type storage to obtain information on a type of a feature to be alerted from an infrastructure or a user device and store the information, wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine only the caution-required feature of the type registered in the alert target type storage as an alert target (Toyoda [0049] Moreover, the engagement module 230 can adjust the hazard threshold according to, in one embodiment, a skill level of the driver, a selected mode (e.g., training), current awareness/engagement of the driver on driving tasks, historic encounters by the driver with similar potential hazards (e.g., failure to properly navigate a hazard), and so on. In this way, the engagement module 230 can customize how many and/or which potential hazards are ultimately displayed to the driver in order to induce the driver to engage with driving tasks while informing the driver of the potential hazards. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust based on driver alert customization as taught by Toyoda. The motivation for doing so would have been to provided customized hazard display to the user, giving them more options. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Toyoda with Lection in view of Watanabe to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 17:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection does not teach adjusting based on driver skill level. In a related field of endeavor, Toyoda teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine whether alerting the caution-required feature is necessary, based on an automated driving level of the subject vehicle (Toyoda [0048] Consequently, at 330, the engagement module 230 determines which potential hazards identified at 320 will be rendered in the AR system 180 as display scenarios. In one embodiment, the engagement module 230 filters or otherwise assesses which of the potential hazards are to be rendered according to, for example, a hazard threshold and/or additional information such as driver skill level. Thus, in one embodiment, the engagement module 230 can select which potential hazards to display according to preference, risk, threat level, and so on. For example, the hazard threshold defines a likelihood of risk that is to be satisfied by the potential hazards to qualify for display. That is, when a potential hazard satisfies the hazard threshold (e.g., 30% likelihood of risk or greater), then the engagement module 230 renders graphical elements for the potential hazard. Otherwise, the engagement module 230, for example, ignores the potential hazard as being insignificant or generally not a concern.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust based on driver skill level as taught by Toyoda. The motivation for doing so would have been to provided customized hazard display to the user, giving them more options. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Toyoda with Lection in view of Watanabe to obtain the invention.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lection U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9969325 in view of Watanabe U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20180198955 and Tang U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20140267415.
Regarding claim 15:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection does not teach driver sensing. In a related field of endeavor, Layton teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine whether alerting the caution-required feature is necessary, based on recognition of a driver on the caution-required feature which is determined by a driver sensing device of the subject vehicle (Layton [0017] At 220, the controller 116, using the driver state monitoring system 124, detects the visual difficulty scenario. At 220, the controller 116, using the direction of eye gaze of the driver (from the driver monitoring system 124) and the set of vehicle perception systems 128 (e.g., the front-facing camera 132 and the GPS system 136) detects a most-likely object that the driver is targeting and having difficulty reading the relative information. At 224, the controller 116, using the driver interface 120, outputs at least one of visual, audio, and haptic information assisting the driver in ascertaining the information. The method 200 then ends or returns to 204 for one or more additional cycles.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use driver sensing as taught by Layton. The motivation for doing so would have been to help drivers and prevent missed turns, prevent missed locations, and prevent accidents (Layton [0002]). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Layton with Lection in view of Watanabe to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 16:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 15, has all of its limitations taught by Lection in view of Layton. Layton further teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to change a display mode of the optical illusion image, according to the recognition of the driver on the caution-required feature (Layton [0017] At 220, the controller 116, using the driver state monitoring system 124, detects the visual difficulty scenario. At 220, the controller 116, using the direction of eye gaze of the driver (from the driver monitoring system 124) and the set of vehicle perception systems 128 (e.g., the front-facing camera 132 and the GPS system 136) detects a most-likely object that the driver is targeting and having difficulty reading the relative information. At 224, the controller 116, using the driver interface 120, outputs at least one of visual, audio, and haptic information assisting the driver in ascertaining the information. The method 200 then ends or returns to 204 for one or more additional cycles.) since it is changed from display mode off to display mode on.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lection U.S. Patent/PG Publication 9969325 in view of Watanabe U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20180198955 and Yamaguchi U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20030025078.
Regarding claim 18:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection does not teach displaying based on ambient light. In a related field of endeavor, Yamaguchi teaches:
wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine that alerting the caution-required feature is necessary when brightness around the subject vehicle is lower than or equal to a predefined threshold (Yamaguchi Abstract A vehicle visibility assist device is started up when a switching operation of a switch for an external vehicle light is detected and when it is determined by a brightness sensor that it is darker outside of the vehicle than a predetermined threshold. The visibility assist device projects infrared light to a region outside the vehicle, captures a reflection of the light, processes an image of the region outside the vehicle, and projects the image onto a surface visible to the vehicle operator.)(Yamaguchi [0064] Next, with input condition E, even if the ignition switch 190 and the main switch 170 are turned on, when it is lighter than the predetermined threshold level outside of the vehicle according to the detection results of the brightness sensor 510, the controller objectively considers that it is not dark enough to require visibility assistance. In this case, control is performed so the visibility assist device shifts to a non-active state (a stand-by state), just as in the case with input condition C, without considering operation of the headlight switch 182 or other switches.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display based on ambient light as taught by Yamaguchi. The motivation for doing so would have been to decrease power consumption and increase the life of the system (Yamaguchi [0006]). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Yamaguchi with Lection in view of Watanabe to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 19:
The projection control apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lection. Lection does not teach displaying based on ambient light. In a related field of endeavor, Yamaguchi teaches: wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine that alerting the caution-required feature is necessary when a headlamp or a width indicator of the subject vehicle is lit (Yamaguchi [0010] When a switch operation to turn on an illumination device, such as a headlight, so as to illuminate the area outside the vehicle is detected, it is assumed that the vehicle operator subjectively feels that it is dark outside. Therefore, the controller starts up the visibility assist device upon establishment of two conditions; i) the illumination device switch position indicates that the vehicle operator subjectively feels it is dark outside the vehicle, and ii) it is objectively determined from detection results of the controller that it is dark outside the vehicle. Having the visibility assist device start up based on these two conditions reduces the frequency of unnecessary operation, and enables the device to turn on when truly necessary, compared with the case where the device is turned on based on establishment of only one of the aforementioned conditions.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display based on ambient light as taught by Yamaguchi. The motivation for doing so would have been to decrease power consumption and increase the life of the system (Yamaguchi [0006]) and activate assistance when the user has indicated it is dark outside for safety (Yamaguchi [0010]). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Yamaguchi with Lection in view of Watanabe to obtain the invention.
Conclusion
For the prior art referenced and the prior art considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon, see PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (571) 270-0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617