DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 11-14 have been added. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 10 & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama et al. (“Hatakeyama”, US 20130241747 A1) in view of Nakazawa et al. (:Nakazawa”, US 20220189301 A1, on the record). 1) Regarding claims 1 and 8, Hatakeyama disclose a visualization system for a motor vehicle operated by a driver present in the motor vehicle (Figs. 1-10), comprising: a display surface (Fig. 5, 7, 9: window glass 20) comprising a display area of images obtained by at least one image sensor configured to capture images from the outside of the vehicle (¶¶65-76; Figs. 21-22), said display surface being illuminated by at least one associated illumination unit, a module (Fig. 1: risk calculating unit in combination with the object sensor 11) for detecting obstacle(s) in said obtained images (¶¶65-76; Figs. 21-22), configured to detect a presence of obstacle(s) by image processing (¶¶44-46) and to calculate an associated danger level, a module (Fig. 1: risk calculating unit in combination with the driver sensor) for detecting a direction of the gaze of the driver of the motor vehicle (¶¶45-46), and an electronic device (ECU 14) comprising a computing processor (examiner notes that it is known that ECU are known to be in the form a processor. Furthermore, in the same art Nakazawa discloses, in ¶101-102, the concept of using a processor to enable executing of programmed steps. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a processor to enable executing of programmed steps, with the motivation to make use of well-known components that enable processing and execution of stored instruction to enable a system function as intended), wherein said computing processor implements a control module of said at least one illumination unit (Hatakeyama: ¶¶45-47; Fig. 11) configured for: controlling a basic illumination on said display surface with a basic brightness level (Hatakeyama: ¶¶69, 80-82 with regard to the normal state that results in virtual image 31 for regular time); and controlling an increase in the brightness level in said obtained image display area, from the basic brightness level to at least one enhanced brightness level (Hatakeyama: ¶¶84; Fig. 13), when either one of the following two conditions is validated: condition a) the module for detecting the direction of the gaze of the driver detects a direction oriented toward said obtained image display area (Hatakeyama: ¶¶79-84; Figs. 13 & 24-26), condition b) the obstacle detection module(s) detects at least one obstacle corresponding to a calculated danger level that exceeds a first predetermined danger threshold (Hatakeyama discloses, in ¶¶56-59, 69-72 determining degree of risk according to a normal state versus a nonnormal state based on detected objects to enable control of the lighting effects accordingly. While, Hatakeyama does explicitly disclose the use of threshold analysis. Nakazawa discloses, in ¶¶27-30, the concept of using threshold analysis involving a predetermined threshold to determine a degree of risk. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using threshold analysis involving a predetermined threshold to determine a degree of risk, with the motivation to enhance the risk assessment features of the system), and the direction of gaze of the detected driver is not oriented toward said display area (Hatakeyama: ¶¶79-84; Figs. 13 & 24-26). 2) Regarding claim 6 the system according to claim 1, wherein, in the case where the condition b) is validated, the control module is configured to control a level of enhanced brightness selected according to the calculated danger level, the brightness level increasing with the calculated danger level (according to applicant's specification, in ¶68, the validation corresponding to determining the direction of gaze of a driver. Hatakeyama discloses, in ¶¶46-47, 84, 88, the driver’s observing direction is determined and that it used to determine the calculated risk that is used to control the output of light emitted from the light source panel 10 to provide larger luminance changes when the degree of danger is larger). 3) Regarding claim 10, Hatakeyama and Nakazawa with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 teach a non-transitory (Nakazawa: ¶¶103-104), computer-readable medium having stored thereon a program (Nakazawa: ¶¶103-104) comprising executable code instructions which, when executed by a programmable electronic device, implement the visualization method according to claim 8 (see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8). 4) Regarding claim 13 the system of claim 6, wherein at least two distinct danger levels are defined, and at least two corresponding enhanced brightness levels (Hatakeyama: ¶¶55-64, 88; Fig. 13-26). 5) Regarding claim 14, Hatakeyama and Nakazawa with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claims 1 and 8 teach a visualization system for a motor vehicle operated by a driver present in the motor vehicle, comprising: a display surface comprising a display area of images obtained by at least one image sensor configured to capture images from the outside of the vehicle, said display surface being illuminated by at least one associated illumination unit ( see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8), a module for detecting obstacle(s) in said obtained images, configured to detect a presence of obstacle(s) by image processing and to calculate an associated danger level ( see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8), a module for detecting a direction of the gaze of the driver of the motor vehicle ( see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8), and an electronic device comprising a computing processor, wherein said computing processor implements a control module ( see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8) of said at least one illumination unit configured for: controlling a basic illumination on said display surface with a basic brightness level ( see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8); controlling an increase in the brightness level in said obtained image display area, from the basic brightness level to at least one enhanced brightness level, when the module for detecting the direction of the gaze of the driver detects a direction oriented toward said obtained image display area ( see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8); and controlling the increase in the brightness level in said obtained image display area, from the basic brightness level to the at least one enhanced brightness level ( see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8) or to another enhanced brightness level, when the obstacle detection module(s) detects at least one obstacle corresponding to a calculated danger level that exceeds a first predetermined danger threshold, and the direction of gaze of the detected driver is not oriented toward said display area ( see analysis of the rejection of claims 1 and 8).
Claim(s) 2 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Nakazawa, and in further view of Fish, JR. et al. ("Fish", US 20110012746 A1, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 2 the system of claim 1, wherein increasing the basic brightness level is carried out in a first duration interval between one millisecond and twenty milliseconds. In the art of providing notification based on detected environment condition, Fish discloses, in see ¶¶2-3, 73, the concept of intensifying/increasing a brightness at a 1 millisecond (ms) to a peak 200 ms pulse time period, which includes the claim range. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of intensifying/increasing a brightness at a 1 millisecond (ms) to a peak 200 ms pulse time period, with the motivation to enhance the illumination features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 7 the system of claim 1, wherein, in the case where the condition b) is validated, the control module is configured to control a maximum brightness level of illumination. In the art of providing notification based on detected environment condition, Fish discloses, in see ¶¶2-3, 73, the concept of intensifying/increasing a brightness at a 1 millisecond (ms) to a peak 200 ms pulse time period, which includes the claim range. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of intensifying/increasing a brightness at a 1 millisecond (ms) to a peak 200 ms pulse time period, with the motivation to enhance the illumination features of the system.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Nakazawa, and in further view of Zaitsev et al. ("Zaitsev", US 20160257252 A1, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 3 the system according to claim 1, wherein the control module is further configured, when the danger level passes below said first predetermined danger threshold and the direction of gaze detected by the detection module of a direction of the driver's gaze is not oriented toward said obtained image display area, to gradually decrease the brightness level toward the basic brightness level, during a time interval of second duration. Zaitsev discloses, in ¶¶60-62 with reference to Figs. 7-9, the concept of removing a displayed image from a display arca when a driver has changed their line-of-sight from that display arca to another area, which can be interpreted as decreasing a brightness level. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of removing a displayed image from a display area when a driver has changed their line-of-sight from that display area to another area, with the motivation to enhance the illumination features of the system.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Nakazawa, and in further view of Vanhelle et al. ("Vanhelle", EP 3156278 A1, on the record). 1) Regarding claim 4 the system according to claim 1, configured for implementing a module for generating an alert when the detected danger level is greater than a second predetermined danger threshold, above the first predetermined danger threshold and the direction of gaze detected by the module for detecting a direction of the driver's gaze is not oriented toward said obtained image display area. In the art of evaluating eye gaze of a driver and performing anti-collision, Vanhelle discloses, on page 2 last paragraph through page 3: ¶1; page 5 last paragraph through page 6: ¶4, the concept of detecting an increased driving parameter higher than a first driving parameter and determining that a driver's head orientation has turned for a duration of time from the direction in which corresponding displayed information is displayed that causes increased intensity of the displayed information higher than the first high intensity. At the filing of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of detecting an increased driving parameter higher than a first driving parameter and determining that a driver's head orientation has turned for a duration of time from the direction in which corresponding displayed information is displayed that causes increased intensity of the displayed information higher than the first high intensity, with the motivation to enhance the safety features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 5 the system according to claim 4, wherein the alert generating module controls an emission of stimuli configured to alert the driver, as a function of the calculated danger level (Hatakeyama: ¶88).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatakeyama in view of Nakazawa, and in further view of Kim (US 20180297470 A1). 1) Regarding claim 9 the method according to claim 8, comprising, in case of a level of danger calculated above the first danger threshold, a display on said display area, superimposed on the display of images, of an indication relating to the obstacle or to the obstacles detected. Hatakeyama discloses, in ¶88, the concept of adjusting the of providing more informative indication based on calculated risk, and Nakazawa discloses, in ¶¶84-86 with reference to Fig. 6, the concept of displaying detected objects in the vicinity of a vehicle and using distance threshold relative to determine low or high risk condition, in which when a low risk condition exist the detected object information provided, but when the risk condition is a high risk condition further highlighted information is provided. While, Nakazawa does not explicitly disclose the function of superimposing/projecting the additional information. In the same art, Kim discloses, in ¶¶451-457 with reference to Fig. 15, the concept of first providing detected object information and then further projecting information that also provides information about the detected object once a calculated risk increases concerning the detected object. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of first providing detected object information and then further projecting information that also provides information about the detected object once a calculated risk increases concerning the detected object, with the motivation to enhance the collision avoidance features of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 11-12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/15/2025 have been considered but are moot because the amendment change the scope. Furthermore, the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of prior art of record reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2684
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685