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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 12/19/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
Response to Arguments
The claim objections, the drawing objection, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the previous Office action dated 09/22/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims and the replacement sheet of Fig. 8A filed on 12/19/2025 and accepted. However, see the below new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
As per claim 1, this claim recites “a method implemented by a processor and comprising three steps,” i.e., the recited three steps implemented/ performed solely by a processor. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail “the processor implementing/ performing a step of “projecting an image corresponding to the calibration object onto a projection plane based on the image information, the position information, and an imaging model,” as required by this claim, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 2 and the corresponding description of the corresponding US 2024/0097491 A1, discloses: “[0070] The projection apparatus 20 may be an HUD, an AR-HUD, or another device having a projection function … The projection apparatus 20 usually includes a projector, a reflection mirror, a projection mirror, an adjustment motor, and a control unit …” and “[0106] … The aligned two-dimensional image is finally input to the display module 6032 for projection display …” In other words, the original disclosure explicitly discloses a projection apparatus or a projection display module implementing/ performing a step of “projecting an image corresponding to the calibration object onto a projection plane” or a recited step of “projecting an image corresponding to the calibration object onto a projection plane based on the image information, the position information, and an imaging model,” but does not explicitly discuss in detail how the processor implements/ performs the recited step of “projecting an image corresponding to the calibration object onto a projection plane based on the image information, the position information, and an imaging model,” as required by this claim, in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above note.
As per claims 9 and 17, see the rejection of claim 1 for similar limitations.
As per claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1, 9, or 17.
Notice to Applicant(s)
In order to compact the prosecution of the application and to inform the Applicant at least independent claims being broad, multiple sets of rejections are made so that the Applicant may narrow the claimed invention to be distinct from the prior arts.
Examiner notes that the specification is not the measure of invention. Therefore, limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. See In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968).
Further, the names/ terms of the features/elements used in the instant application or instant claims may be different from the names/terms of the matching features/ elements of the prior arts; however, the matching features/ elements of the prior arts contain all characteristics/ functions of the features/elements DEFINED by the pending claims.
Note that in order to avoid confusion, the below citations in the below rejection(s) are mere one or more places in the reference to disclose the "claimed" limitation(s) and/or are directed to one or more of embodiments disclosed by the cited reference(s). In other words, the “claimed” features/limitations may be read in other places in the reference or other embodiments of the reference. In order to better understand how the claimed limitations are taught by the reference(s), a review of the entire reference(s) is suggested by the examiner. Applicant is reminded a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention as not all relevant paragraphs may have been cited in the rejection. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Further, note that one or more prior art rejections to one or more claims are made because whether each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a prior art reference, based on a level of one of ordinary skill in the art and all requirements of the test for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102 and/or a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103 must be met. In some cases, a single prior art reference and/or a combination of prior arts provides a stronger rejection of some of the pending claims while another single prior art reference and/or another combination of prior arts provides a stronger rejection of others of the pending claims because the pending claims may be broad to be read in at least one single prior art or at least one combination of prior arts. The purpose of such one or more prior art rejections to one or more claims is to suggest the Applicant to submit claim(s) closely directed to the Applicant’s invention and, as a result, to minimize the examination of the application.
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 2013/0169679 A1; hereinafter Su) in view of Liu et al. (CN-109887003-A; hereinafter Liu; see the attached English Translation for the following citations.)
As per claims 1, 9 and 17, Su discloses an apparatus and an associated method (see at least Figs. 2-3; ¶¶ 22-32) comprising: a memory configured to store instructions (see at least ¶ 31, disclosing the apparatus comprising hardware and software for performing at least steps of the method shown in Fig. 3, thereby rendering a memory storing the software comprising instructions for performing steps of the method shown in Fig. 3;) and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to (see at least ¶ 31, disclosing the apparatus comprising hardware and software comprising instructions for performing steps/operations of the method shown in Fig. 3; further see at least Fig. 2, disclosing hardware including a processor comprising at least an image processing unit 18 for performing steps/operations of the method shown in Fig. 3):
obtain image information and position information of a calibration object located outside a vehicle (see at least Fig. 3 and the corresponding description; specifically step S 10, utilizing a first image fetching unit to fetch a front road image; step S 12, an image processing unit obtaining positions of a lane marking and an obstacle in front, on the basis of the front road image;)
project an image corresponding to the calibration object onto a projection plane based on the image information, the position information, and an imaging model (see at least Fig. 3 and the corresponding description; specifically step S 14, the image processing unit utilizing a correction coordinate conversion model to convert the positions of traffic lane and obstacle in front into display information;) and
adjust a first parameter of the imaging model see at least Figs. 3-4 and the corresponding description; specifically after utilizing the correction coordinate conversion model to convert positions of lane marking and obstacle in front to the display information, the method comprises: step S16, adjusting the display conditions of display information, to generate an overlap error correction value, wherein the display conditions can be adjusting the focal length (for example parameter AP) or inclination angle of a projector unit (equivalent to adjusting a first parameter of an imaging model); step S 18, correcting the display information on the basis of overlap error correction value; step S20, after correction, calculating the display information about the positions of lane marking and obstacle in front to be overlapped with image of the actual traffic lane, then, the projector unit projects the display information onto a viewable panel.)
Su is silent to “adjusting a first parameter of the imaging model when an overlap ratio between the calibration object and the image on the projection plane is less than a first threshold”
However, Liu discloses a technique of adjusting a [[first]] parameter of the imaging model when an overlap ratio between the target/ calibration object and the image corresponding to the target/ calibration object is less than a [[first]] predetermined threshold value, thereby improving an overlap between the target/ calibration object and the image (see at least the paragraph on pages 24-25 of the English translation.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to apply the same aforementioned technique in the method and the apparatus of Su, in view a teaching in the Liu reference, to improve the above modified apparatus of the Su reference for the predictable result of improving an overlap between the calibration object and the image. Accordingly, the modified Su in view of Liu obviously renders all limitations of these claims.
As per claims 2, 10 and 18, Su further discloses the adjusting the first parameter comprising adjusting one or more second parameters of a perspective projection model, wherein the second parameters comprise field of view of the imaging model or a position of an imaging plane of the imaging model (see Su at least Figs. 3-5; ¶¶ 28-29.)
As per claims 3, 11, 20, Su, as discussed in the rejection of claim 2, discloses the adjusting the first parameter comprising adjusting the field of view, but is silent to “wherein the adjusting the first parameter further comprises adjusting the field of view when a size difference between the calibration object and the image is greater than a second threshold,” as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that both the concept and the advantages of adjusting the field of view when a size difference between the calibration object and the image is greater than a second threshold to improve an overlap between the calibration object and the image are well-known and expected in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to apply the same aforementioned technique in the method and the apparatus of Su to improve the above modified apparatus of the Su reference for the predictable result of improving an overlap between the calibration object and the image.
As per claims 4, 12 and 19, Su further discloses the adjusting the first parameter further comprises adjusting a two-dimensional position of the imaging plane see at least Figs. 5a and 5b; ¶ 29,) but is silent to a second threshold or “adjusting a two-dimensional position of the imaging plane when a positional offset between the calibration object and the image is greater than a second threshold,” as claimed. However, Official Notice is taken that both the concept and the advantages of adjusting a two-dimensional position of the imaging plane when a positional offset between the calibration object and the image is greater than a second threshold to improve an overlap between the calibration object and the image are well-known and expected in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to apply the same aforementioned technique in the method and the apparatus of Su to improve the above modified apparatus of the Su reference for the predictable result of improving an overlap between the calibration object and the image.
As per claims 5 and 13, Su further discloses the method further comprising: determining, using an image that is captured by a first image fetching unit 16, such as a camera, and that comprises the calibration object and the image, a pixel offset between the calibration object and the image (see at least Figs. 3-5; ¶ 22, ¶ 28;) and determining, using the pixel offset, the overlap ratio (see at least Fig. 3, steps S16-S18; ¶¶ 28-29.)
As per claims 6 and 14, Su further discloses the method further comprising training, based on a training set comprising training samples, the imaging model, wherein the training samples comprise second parameters of human-eye position information, the image information, the position information, and the overlap ratio (see at least Fig. 4; ¶¶ 28-29.)
As per claims 7 and 15, Su further discloses the method further comprising: obtaining an alignment requirement of a user; sending, to the user in response to obtaining the alignment requirement, an alignment start prompt message; obtaining a human-eye position of the user; aligning, based on the human-eye position, the first parameter; and sending, to the user, an alignment completion prompt message after completing aligning the first parameter (see at least Fig. 4; ¶¶ 25-27.)
As per claims 8 and 16, Su further discloses the method further comprising: prompting the user to determine, using a human eye, whether the calibration object overlaps with the image on the projection plane; and adjusting, according to an adjustment instruction of the user, a second parameter of an aligned imaging model when the calibration object does not overlap with the image on the projection plane (see at least Fig. 4; ¶¶ 25-27.)
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 Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. 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, see http://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.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights