ETAILED 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang; Hea Jin (US 2019/0389454, hereinafter Yang ‘454).
In re claims 1, 14, Yang ‘454 teaches a motion sickness reduction system of a passenger of a vehicle, the motion sickness reduction system comprising: one or more passenger sensors configured to collect state information of the passenger, the one or more passenger sensors including at least one of a bio signal detector or a camera module (0049);
One or more vehicle sensors configured to collect real-time driving information of the vehicle from a sensor located in the vehicle, the one or more vehicle sensors including at least one of an acceleration sensor, a brake sensor, a tilt sensor, a yaw/pitch/roll sensor, a steering angle sensor, a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, or a camera sensor (0035, 0036, 0038);
a processor configured to: determine a motion sickness state of the passenger based on the collected state information (0041-0043); and generate motion sickness reduction information based on the determined motion sickness state (0041-0046); and an output unit configured to output the generated motion sickness reduction information (0041-0046, 0063), wherein the generated motion sickness reduction information output by the output unit is at least one of visually recognizable by the passenger, auditorily recognizable by the passenger, or a combination thereof (0047, 0051-0063).
In re claim 2, Yang ‘454 teaches wherein the output unit is further configured to output information through at least one of a display, a front window located in the vehicle, or a combination thereof (fig. 6, para 0031).
In re claims 3 and 15, Yang ‘454 teaches the motion sickness reduction information generated by the processor includes an augmented reality video reflecting the real-time driving information of the vehicle (0044-0053, etc., vehicle operation content is a real-time driving information), and wherein the generated augmented reality video is output to at least one of the display, a lower end of the front window, or a combination thereof (0009, 0040, 0047, 0051-0052).
In re claims 21 and 22, Yang 454 teaches wherein the augmented reality video is output at the lower end of the front window corresponding to a bonnet portion of a field of vision through the front window of the passenger (fig. 6, para 0031).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘454 in view of Ishihara et al. (US 2018/0222490, hereinafter Ishihara ‘490).
In re claim 4, Yang ‘454 teaches wherein the display comprises: a front display located on a front side of the vehicle (fig. 6); but fails to teach a rear seat entertainment (RSE) display located on a roof of the vehicle.
Ishihara ‘490 teaches wherein the display comprises: a front display located on a front side of the vehicle (fig. 2, 240, fig. 3, 240, 0026, 0027, 0031); and a rear seat entertainment (RSE) display located on a roof of the vehicle (fig. 4, fig. 6, 230, 0035, 0036, 0054-0055).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features of Ishihara ‘490 in order to allow the users in the front or in the back the option to choose multiple viewing locations and angles.
In re claim 5, Ishihara ‘490 teaches further comprising a driving module located on the roof of the vehicle, wherein the driving module is configured to rotate or position the RSE display (0035, 0036).
In re claim 6, Ishihara ‘490 teaches wherein the output unit is further configured to output information through at least one of a side window, a sunroof located in the vehicle, or a combination thereof (fig. 2, 240, fig. 3, 240, 0026, 0027, 0031, fig. 4, fig. 6, 230, 0035, 0036, 0054-0055).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘454 and Ishihara ‘490 in view of Austin et al. (US 2021/0394793, hereinafter Austin ‘793) and Bongwald (US 2015/0232030, hereinafter Bongwald ‘030).
In re claim 7, Park ‘459 and Ishihara ‘490 fail to teach wherein the motion sickness reduction information generated by the processor includes a gradation change reflecting the real-time driving information of the vehicle through at least one of a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) film located in the side window, the sunroof, or a combination thereof.
Austin ‘793 teaches wherein the motion sickness reduction information generated by the processor includes a gradation change reflecting the real-time driving information of the vehicle (fig. 3, 0061)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Park ‘459 to include the features of Ishihara ‘490 in order to allow the users in the front or in the back the option to choose multiple viewing locations and angles, and to include the features of Austin ‘793 in order to provide driving status information to rider and observer to increase safety operations.
Furthermore, Bongwald ‘030 teaches the use of at least one of a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) film on the windows of a vehicle for display (0031-0035).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features of Ishihara ‘490 in order to allow the users in the front or in the back the option to choose multiple viewing locations and angles, and to include the features of Austin ‘793 in order to provide driving status information to rider and observer to increase safety operations, and to include the features of Bongwald ‘030 in order to provide optimal displaying viewing experiences.
Claim(s) 9, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘454, in view of Park (US 2022/0224459, hereinafter Park ‘459), and still further in view of House, William Neal (US 2004/0021350, hereinafter House ‘350).
In re claim 9, Yang ‘454 fails to teach wherein the output unit is further configured to output information through a speaker unit of a seat headrest located in the vehicle; and wherein the speaker unit includes a first speaker located at one side of the seat headrest and a second speaker located at another side of the seat headrest.
Park ‘459 teaches wherein the output unit is further configured to output information through a speaker unit of a seat headrest located in the vehicle (fig. 6, 330, 0126-0128); but fails to teach wherein the speaker unit includes a first speaker located at one side of the seat headrest and a second speaker located at another side of the seat headrest.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features Park ‘459 in order to provide both visual and audio feedback for motion reduction.
House ‘350 teaches wherein the speaker unit includes a first speaker located at one side of the seat headrest and a second speaker located at another side of the seat headrest (fig. 7, 706, 708; para 0057-0059).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features Park ‘459 in order to provide both visual and audio feedback for motion reduction, and to include the features House ‘350 in order to improve sound field acoustics by compensating for some the individual physical and acoustical characteristics of a listener.
In re claims 13 and 20, Park ‘459 teaches wherein the output unit is further configured to output a
House ‘350 teaches spatial acoustic sound generated from speakers (0067).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features Park ‘459 in order to provide both visual and audio feedback for motion reduction, and to include the features House ‘350 in order to improve sound field acoustics by compensating for some the individual physical and acoustical characteristics of a listener.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘454, Park ‘459 and House ‘350 in view of Jeon et al. (US 2009/0306891, hereinafter Jeon ‘891).
In re claim 10, Yang ‘454, Park ‘459 and House ‘350 fails to teach wherein the motion sickness reduction information generated by the processor includes a spatial acoustic sound that reflects the real-time driving information of the vehicle; and wherein the generated spatial acoustic sound is sequentially output from the first speaker to the second speaker depending on a rotation direction of the vehicle.
Jeon ‘891 teaches wherein the motion sickness reduction information generated by the processor includes a spatial acoustic sound that reflects the real-time driving information of the vehicle; and wherein the generated spatial acoustic sound is sequentially output from the first speaker to the second speaker depending on a rotation direction of the vehicle (0035-0040)
In re claim 11, furthermore, Jeon ‘891 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to generate the spatial acoustic sounds with different tones, intervals, and cycles based on the real-time driving information of the vehicle (0035, 0038-0040, note that turn left or right is an interval during driving).
In re claim 12, still furthermore, Jeon ‘891 teaches further comprising: a user input unit configured to receive output of the passenger, wherein the output unit is further configured to output the spatial acoustic sound based on the received output of the passenger (0035-0040).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 and Park ‘459 to include the features House ‘350 in order to improve sound field acoustics by compensating for some the individual physical and acoustical characteristics of a listener, and to include the features of Jeon ‘891 in order to provide a voice guidance of the car’s navigation direction to allow user a better understanding of where the vehicle is going.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘454 in view of Austin ‘793 and Bongwald ‘030.
In re claim 16. Yang ‘454 fail to teach wherein the generating of the motion sickness reduction information includes changing a gradation reflecting the real-time driving information of the vehicle through a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) film located in at least one of a side window, a sunroof of the vehicle, or a combination thereof; and wherein the outputting of the generated motion sickness reduction information includes outputting of the generated gradation change on at least one of the side window, the sunroof, or a combination thereof.
Austin ‘793 teaches wherein the generating of the motion sickness reduction information includes changing a gradation reflecting the real-time driving information of the vehicle (fig. 3, 0061) reduction information includes outputting of the generated gradation change on at least one of the side window, the sunroof, or a combination thereof (0060).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features of Ishihara ‘490 in order to allow the users in the front or in the back the option to choose multiple viewing locations and angles, and to include the features of Austin ‘793 in order to provide driving status information to rider and observer to increase safety operations.
Furthermore, Bongwald ‘030 teaches the use of at least one of a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) film on the windows of a vehicle for display (0031-0035).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features of Austin ‘793 in order to provide driving status information to rider and observer to increase safety operations, and to include the features of Bongwald ‘030 in order to provide optimal displaying viewing experiences.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang ‘454 in view of Park ‘459, and still further in view of Jeon ‘891.
In re claim 18, Yang ‘454 fails to wherein the generating of the motion sickness reduction information includes generating a spatial acoustic sound that reflects the real-time driving information of the vehicle; and wherein the outputting of the generated motion sickness reduction information includes outputting information from a first speaker to a second speaker depending on a rotation direction of the vehicle.
Park ‘459 teaches wherein the output unit is further configured to output information through a speaker unit of a seat headrest located in the vehicle (fig. 6, 330, 0126-0128); but fails to teach wherein the generating of the motion sickness reduction information includes generating a spatial acoustic sound that reflects the real-time driving information of the vehicle; and wherein the outputting of the generated motion sickness reduction information includes outputting information from a first speaker to a second speaker depending on a rotation direction of the vehicle.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features Park ‘459 in order to provide both visual and audio feedback for motion reduction.
Jeon ‘891 teaches wherein the generating of the motion sickness reduction information includes generating a spatial acoustic sound that reflects the real-time driving information of the vehicle; and wherein the outputting of the generated motion sickness reduction information includes outputting information from a first speaker to a second speaker depending on a rotation direction of the vehicle (0035-0040).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features Park ‘459 in order to provide both visual and audio feedback for motion reduction, and to include the features of Jeon ‘891 in order to provide a voice guidance of the car’s navigation direction to allow user a better understanding of where the vehicle is going.
In re claim 19, furthermore, Jeon ‘891 teaches wherein the generating of the spatial acoustic sound includes generating the spatial acoustic sounds with different tones, intervals, and cycles based on the real-time driving information of the vehicle (0035, 0038-0040, note that turn left or right is an interval during driving).
In re claim 20, still furthermore, Jeon ‘891 teaches wherein the outputting of the generated motion sickness reduction information includes outputting a spatial acoustic sound that reflects the real-time driving information of the vehicle through an acoustic device of the passenger connected to the vehicle. (0035-0040).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Yang ‘454 to include the features Park ‘459 in order to provide both visual and audio feedback for motion reduction, and to include the features of Jeon ‘891 in order to provide a voice guidance of the car’s navigation direction to allow user a better understanding of where the vehicle is going.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, 18-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights