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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/565, 108 filed on 11/29/2023.
• Claims 1-5, 7-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 09/26/2025.
• Applicant’s amendments to the claim 10 has overcome the claim objection.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed in Application No. 18/565, 108 filed on 11/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/02/2025 and 11/29/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US20200033858A1) in view of Oshima (US20200139851A1) and Ali (US20140320823A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10:
Xiao teaches:
A display system, comprising: a projector provided in a vehicle interior of a vehicle and capable of projecting a video in the vehicle interior;( Xiao, Fig.8B and para[74], “projector 808 may project the interactive content 810-812 onto window”)
a sensor provided in the vehicle to detect a state of the vehicle or an occupant of the vehicle; ( Xiao, Abstract, “the smart seat sensor data being detected by a tactile-sensitive surface material of a seat of an autonomous vehicle in response to a user interacting”)
and a controller that receives a signal from the sensor to control the projector, wherein the controller changes a projection state of the projector based on the signal from the sensor; ( Xiao, Fig.6 depicts in step 502-504 obtaining smart seat sensor data and vehicle sensor data, and step 508 presenting interactive content utilizing projector, and para[39], “computing devices” as a controller)
Xiao does not teach, but Oshima teaches:
wherein the sensor is an illuminance sensor that measures an illuminance of the vehicle interior, (Oshima, para[144], “The illuminance sensor 30 is a sensor for detecting the brightness around the seat unit ”)
based on the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor (Oshima, para[144], “ …controlled in accordance with the brightness detected by the illuminance sensor ”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Oshima in order to include wherein the sensor is an illuminance sensor that measures an illuminance of the vehicle interior and control mechanism based on the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Oshima’s methods for controlling illuminance sensor in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Xiao in view of Oshima does not explicitly teach, but Ali teaches:
and wherein the controller corrects the video projected by the projector, ( Ali, para[27], “adjusting the intensity … of the light projectors ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao in view of Oshima with these above teachings from Ali in order to include the controller corrects the video projected by the projector based on the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao in view of Oshima’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Ali’s method of controlling the projector in a vehicle in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Regarding Claim 7:
Xiao in view of Oshima and Ali , as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiao does not teach, but Oshima teaches:
The display system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle includes an illuminance adjustment mechanism that adjusts the illuminance of the vehicle interior based on the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor, (Oshima, para[144], “The illuminance sensor 30 is a sensor for detecting the brightness around the seat unit … the illuminance of a lighting system 50 provided in the vehicle V may be controlled in accordance with the brightness detected by the illuminance sensor 30.”)
based on an illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor after the adjustment. (Oshima, para[144], “ …controlled in accordance with the brightness detected by the illuminance sensor )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Oshima in order to include wherein the vehicle includes an illuminance adjustment mechanism that adjusts the illuminance of the vehicle interior based on the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Oshima’s methods for controlling illuminance sensor in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Xiao in view of Oshima does not explicitly teach, but Ali teaches:
and the controller corrects the video projected by the projector, ( Ali, para[27], “adjusting the intensity … of the light projectors ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Ali in order to include the controller corrects the video projected by the projector. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Ali’s method of controlling the projector in a vehicle in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Claim(s) 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US20200033858A1) in view of Oshima (US20200139851A1) and Ali (US20140320823A1), further in view of Ammar (RU 143731 U1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Xiao in view of Oshima and Ali, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiao teaches:
The display system according to claim 1, further comprising: a door sensor that detects an open/closed state of a door of the vehicle, ( Xiao, para[30], “The one or more other sensors may be disposed in various portion of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., seat, floor, door, roof)”, and para[36], “detect interactions within an autonomous vehicle… opening/closing a door ”
Xiao does not explicitly teach, but Ammar teaches:
wherein the controller stops the projection of the projector when the door sensor detects that the door is opened.( Ammar, Abstract, “wherein the controller is configured to …turn off the light projectors upon detection of the opening of a vehicle door by a passenger”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Ammar in order to include the controller stops the projection of the projector when the door sensor detects that the door is opened. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Ammar’s method of controlling the projector in a vehicle in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Regarding Claim 5:
Xiao in view of Oshima and Ali, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiao teaches:
The display system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is a seating sensor that detects a seated state of the occupant, ( Xiao, para[04], “the smart seat sensor data being detected by a tactile-sensitive surface material of a seat of an autonomous vehicle in response to a user interacting with the tactile-sensitive surface material”)
the seating sensor detects that the occupant leaves a seat. ( Xiao, para[36],” detect interactions within an autonomous vehicle …include …a user sitting on a seat”) Examiner’s note: Xiao teaches a seat sensor to detect a user sitting on a seat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make a simple modification of control algorithm to detect that the user leaves a seat.
Xiao does not explicitly teach, but Ammar teaches:
and the controller stops the projection of the projector ( Ammar, Abstract, “wherein the controller is configured to …turn off the light projectors”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Ammar in order to include the controller stops the projection of the projector. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Ammar’s method of controlling the projector in a vehicle in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US20200033858A1) in view of Oshima (US20200139851A1) and Ali (US20140320823A1), further in view of Lee (US 11170751 B1) and Ammar (RU 143731 U1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Xiao in view of Oshima and Ali, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiao does not teach, but Lee teaches:
The display system according to claim 1, further comprising a window sensor that detects an open/closed state of a window or a roof window of the vehicle, (Lee, Col.9, lines 52-53, “Window sensors 186 may detect open and closed conditions of each vehicle window”)
… when the window sensor detects that the window or the roof window is opened (Lee, Col.9, lines 52-53, “Window sensors 186 may detect open and closed conditions of each vehicle window”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Lee in order to include wherein the sensor is a window sensor that detects an open/closed state of a window or a roof window of the vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Lee’s window sensor in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Xiao does not explicitly teach, but Ammar teaches:
Wherein the controller stops the projection of the projector ( Ammar, Abstract, “wherein the controller is configured to …turn off the light projectors”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Ammar in order to include the controller stops the projection of the projector. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Ammar’s method of controlling the projector in a vehicle in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US20200033858A1) in view of Oshima (US20200139851A1) and Ali (US20140320823A1), further in view of Agrawal (US 20210176608 A1) and Ammar (RU 143731 U1).
Regarding Claim 4:
Xiao in view of Oshima and Ali, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiao does not teach, but Agrawal teaches:
The display system according to claim 1, further comprising: an incoming call sensor that detects an incoming call on a mobile phone of the occupant, ( Agrawal, claim 6, “detecting an incoming call at the mobile electronic communications device”)
the incoming call sensor detects an incoming call on the mobile phone. ( Agrawal, claim 6, “detecting an incoming call at the mobile electronic communications device”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Agrawal in order to include wherein the sensor is a window sensor that detects an open/closed state of a window or a roof window of the vehicle. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Agrawal’s methods for managing calls and alerts on a mobile electronic communications device in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Xiao does not explicitly teach, but Ammar teaches:
wherein the controller stops the projection of the projector ( Ammar, Abstract, “wherein the controller is configured to …turn off the light projectors”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Ammar in order to include the controller stops the projection of the projector. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Ammar’s method of controlling the projector in a vehicle in order to improve an immersive experience of the user.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US20200033858A1) in view of Oshima (US20200139851A1) and Ali (US20140320823A1), further in view of Lottes (US20220076508A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Xiao in view of Oshima and Ali, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Xiao teaches:
The display system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous driving vehicle that can travel autonomously, ( Xiao, para[02],” autonomous vehicles”)
and the controller sets the projector to be operable when the vehicle is… in the autonomous driving mode ( Xiao, para[49],” The interactive content presentation engine 302 may function to present interactive content 310 within an autonomous vehicle... an interactive content projector may project multi-layered images of the interactive content ”)
Xiao does not explicitly teach, but Lottes teaches:
and includes a mode switch that switches between a manual driving mode and an autonomous driving mode, (Lottes, para[40], “the physical environment condition R1 may be a driving condition corresponding to a manual driving of the vehicle 13 by the user... The physical environment condition R2 may be a driving condition corresponding to an autonomous driving of the vehicle.”) Examiner note: Lottes teaches the physical environment condition R1 and R1 is a mode switches between a manual driving mode and an autonomous driving mode.
and the controller sets … to be operable when the vehicle is switched to the autonomous driving mode (Lottes, para[18], “in the autonomous condition, … all the data types are permitted to be outputted on the user-interface of the device.”, and para[31], “the user-related data files V1 to F2 of the data type of a digital video”) Examiner note: Lottes teaches the video output is operable when vehicle is in autonomous mode.
and sets the … to be inoperable when the vehicle is switched to the manual driving mode. (Lottes, para[18], “during the manual driving condition, … the user-related data file of the data type of a video data file may be disabled”, and para[40], “In the case of the physical environment condition R1, where the user may drive the vehicle 13 manually, …that the user-related data V1 which is in the form of a video data file, is not outputted in this case. Since, a video data file can distract the user while driving the vehicle 13, which in return can also lead to an accident”) Examiner note: Lottes teaches the video output is inoperable when vehicle is in manual mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Lottes in order to include a mode switch that switches between a manual driving mode and an autonomous driving mode the controller sets the projector to be operable when the vehicle is switched to the autonomous driving mode and sets the projector to be inoperable or stops the projection of the projector when the vehicle is switched to the manual driving mode. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Lottes’s method of controlling the video output device in a vehicle in order to ensure a safe driving the vehicle.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (US20200033858A1) in view of Chung (US20110134300A1), further in view of NIIKUNI (US20190291679A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
Xiao teaches:
A display system, comprising: a projector provided in a vehicle interior of a vehicle and capable of projecting a video in the vehicle interior; ( Xiao, Fig.8B and para[74], “projector 808 may project the interactive content 810-812 onto window”)
a sensor provided in the vehicle to detect a state of the vehicle or an occupant of the vehicle; ( Xiao, Abstract, “the smart seat sensor data being detected by a tactile-sensitive surface material of a seat of an autonomous vehicle in response to a user interacting”)
and a controller that receives a signal from the sensor to control the projector, wherein the controller changes a projection state of the projector based on the signal from the sensor, ( Xiao, Fig.6 depicts in step 502-504 obtaining smart seat sensor data and vehicle sensor data, and step 508 presenting interactive content utilizing projector, and para[39], “computing devices” as a controller)
wherein a seat state adjuster that changes a state of a seat in which the occupant is seated is provided, ( Xiao, para[35],” adjusting components within the autonomous vehicle 102 (e.g., rotating seats)”)
Xiao does not explicitly teach, but Chung teaches:
and wherein the controller prompts a use of the projector (Chung, para[131], “popped up … a message asking the user whether to activate the projector”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from Chung in order to include the controller prompts a use of the projector. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with Chung’s method of controlling the projector in a vehicle in order to ensure a safe driving the vehicle.
Xiao does not explicitly teach, but NIIKUNI teaches:
upon determination that a seat back of the seat is tilted rearward by more than a predetermined angle by the seat state adjuster. (NIIKUNI, para[26], “the seatback 24 is reclined (tilted rearward) past a predetermined angle”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiao with these above teachings from NIIKUNI in order to include when a seat back of the seat is tilted rearward by more than a predetermined angle by the seat state adjuster. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Xiao’s systems and methods for autonomous vehicle smart seats with NIIKUNI’s method of controlling the seat in a vehicle in order to ensure a safe driving the vehicle.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
103 rejection. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest at least the newly added features “wherein the controller corrects the video projected by the projector, based on the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor” of claim 1.
103 rejection. Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest at least the newly added features “wherein the controller prompts a use of the projector upon determination that a seat back of the seat is tilted rearward by more than a predetermined angle by the seat state adjuster” of claim 9.
In response of A). Examiner respectively disagrees. Oshima teaches an illuminance sensor for detecting the brightness around the seat unit and controlling in-vehicle lighting in accordance with detected illuminance in para[144], therefore teaching the use of vehicle-interior illuminance sensor to inform display/lighting conditions in the cabin. Thus, Oshima teaches the claim limitation of “based on the illuminance measured by the illuminance sensor”. Ali teaches adjusting projector output (intensity/activation timing) as a function of sensor-detected conditions (variable distance) in para[27]. Therefore, Ali teaches the limitation of “wherein the controller corrects the video projected by the projector”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use the interior illuminance signal (as taught by Oshima) in Xiao’s projector control loop to correct /adjust the projected image parameters ( brightness, color balance, etc) in the same manner of Ali shows adjusting projector output responsive to sensed conditions in order to maintain visibility and contrast under varying cabin brightness. Applicants argued that Ali does not teach “corrects the video”. However, “corrects the video” reasonably includes adjusting luminance and related image parameter of the projected content. Ali discloses adjusting projector output (intensity/activation timing) in response to sensor-detected conditions (variable distance) is a form of video correction in the projection; a person of ordinary skill would understand that such correction can be driven by different sensor inputs, including illuminance sensor input as disclosed by Oshima. Thus, Ali provides the projector control mechanism, while Oshima provides the illuminance input signal, and Xiao provides the vehicle projector setup. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Xiao in view of Oshima and Ali because this would have achieved the desirable result of automatically correcting the video based on the illuminance, specifically improving the usability of the projection device equipped in the vehicle. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 over Xiao in view of Oshima and Ali is maintained.
In response of B). Examiner respectively disagrees. Xiao teaches a projector provided in a vehicle interior of a vehicle and capable of projecting a video in the vehicle interior in para[74]; a sensor provided in the vehicle to detect a state of the vehicle or an occupant of the vehicle; and a controller that receives a signal from the sensor to control the projector, wherein the controller changes a projection state of the projector based on the signal from the sensor in step 502-504 of Fig. 6, wherein a seat state adjuster that changes a state of a seat in which the occupant is seated is provided in para [35]. Chung teaches prompting a user regarding use of a projector in response to vehicle mounted device conditions, including presenting a prompt or notification to initiate projection when conditions are satisfied. Therefore, the claim element of “prompts a use of the projector” is taught. Niikuni discloses vehicle seat systems having sensors that determine seatback angle and state (e.g., recline position) for safety and comfort control. Thus, the claim element of sensing that a seat back “is tilted rearward by more than a predetermined angle” using a seat state adjuster/sensor is taught. Implement a threshold (“ more than a predetermined angle”) is a well-known engineering practice and Niikuni employs threshold-based decisions. Substitution of the specific seatback angle threshold as the condition for prompting would have been a predictable results. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Xiao (vehicle projector systems condition operating on seat state) in view of Chung (prompting a user to initiate projection ) and Niikuni (seatback angle sensing and threshold based decision making are standard and readily available) in order to use the detected seatback angle threshold as a trigger for providing a prompt to use the projector when the occupant is in a more reclined posture condition with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand this is a straightforward application of known sensor input (seat angle) to known prompting logic (user projector) and yield predictable benefit of improved usability of projector in vehicle. Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 over Xiao in view of Chung and Niikuni is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667