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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. M.P.E.P. 2181(I), Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc, quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A substitute term acts as a generic placeholder for the term "means" and would not be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as being sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed function. "The standard is whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure." Williamson at 1349; see also Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Specification must disclose adequate structure for each of the claimed functions, and the structure for special purpose functions must be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor, specification must also disclose an algorithm for performing these claimed functions. Williamson at 1351.
Claims 1-15 recite “An air floating video display apparatus comprising: … a display apparatus configured to display a video; … a retroreflection plate configured to reflect video light from the display apparatus …” generic terms modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding differentiated structure, material, or act for each claimed function.
Although some portions of the Specification refer to a display apparatus as being an LCD display or an LCD panel, dependent claims claim a separate component that also refers to the function of an LCD panel, such as such as Claim 5, directed to “an electronically-controlled transmittance variable unit” or Claim 6 directed to “an electronically-controlled transmittance variable unit.” Thus the scope of the claim structure “a display apparatus configured to display a video” is indefinite in the claims.
Similarly, Specification does not appear to provide support for a “retroreflection” functionality of the retroreflection plate. Further, the “plate” term is defined in the Specification as not strictly limited to a planar plate: “the retroreflection plate 2 of the present invention is not limited to a planar plate” in Specification Page 7, lines 11-12.
Claims 4-6, 8-11 also recite “video display apparatus comprising: … a mechanism configured to switch the window of the housing into a light-shielding state … an electronically-controlled transmittance variable unit … a transmissive self-luminous video display apparatus,” generic terms (mechanism, unit, apparatus) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding differentiated structure, material, or act for each claimed function. As noted above, each of these differentiated elements alludes to an LCD structure in the Specification which is also invoked by the claim language: “a display apparatus configured to dis play a video,” This raises an indefiniteness as to what specific differentiated structure is invoked by each claimed term.
Claims 12-15 also recite “video display apparatus comprising: … a display apparatus configured to display a video; … a second display apparatus,” generic terms (mechanism, unit, apparatus) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding differentiated structure, material, or act for each claimed function. The claim invokes three instances of a display apparatus without clarifying the difference in each structure that performs the function, explaining the structure by which a display apparatus comprises two differentiated display apparata, or claiming terminology for which structures are differentially defined in the Specification. Examiner suggests clarifying the three claimed display apparata in differentiated structural terms that are clearly understood in the art.
Claims 10, 14 recite “an absorptive polarization plate” generic term (plate) modified by functional language but not modified by structure or a structural term and not naming a structure readily recognized by persons of skill in the art to perform the claimed function. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, and shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding differentiated structure, material, or act for each claimed function. Specification, Paragraph 38 appears to describe this as a polarization filter.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2, 4-7, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. These claims are omnibus type claims.
Claim 2 recites: “wherein a background of the air floating video which a user of the air floating video display apparatus can visually recognize is an inside of a housing of the air floating video display apparatus, and … a region of the object included in the air floating video is separately recognized from the inside of the housing of the air floating video display apparatus, which is the background of the air floating video, by the image processing with the input/output characteristics by the image processor.” This claim does not define a particular structural limitation on the video display apparatus. Further, Applicant’s belief of what a user would subjectively recognize does not provide an objective standard by which a structural limitation of the display can be ascertained or by which a processor-implemented process can be qualified. Further it is not clear how an object appearing in the video is connected to a physical location inside the display housing or how a processing of the video which is output to display would treat a location inside the display housing. For the remainder of this Office Action, this element is interpreted as an image processor displaying an image that is differentiated from the background and/or adding a border around the desired video to differentiate the intended display area from the background. See below.
Examiner notes that “drivers come in various sizes” and viewers can be in different locations and have different eye sight, so what a user will observe is not an objective limitation. See Schofield, Paragraph 57.
Examiner suggests clarifying these claimed features, perhaps by defining a limitation on the viewing zone for the head up display, or defining a limitation on the location of the viewer from which the head up display can be observed, and certainly clarifying how the physical location inside of the housing is related to the image content and the processing.
Claims 4-7 recite: “wherein, when the user visually recognizes the air floating video, the air floating video is displayed in front of a background of the air floating video display apparatus which the user can visually recognize through the window” As noted above, this claim language does not define a particular structural limitation on the video display apparatus. Further, Applicant’s belief of what a user would subjectively recognize does not provide an objective standard by which a structural limitation of the display can be ascertained or by which a processor-implemented process can be qualified.
Examiner suggests clarifying what the processor does to the video or how the display operation is altered rather than describing what the user may visually recognize.
Claims 12-14 recite “wherein the second display apparatus is arranged so as to display a video from a rear side of the air floating video toward a side of the user when the user visually recognizes the air floating video.” This claim language does not define a particular structural limitation on the video display apparatus. It is not clear what specific arrangement is required by the claim to achieve the subjective recognition of the user. Further, Applicant’s belief of what a user would subjectively recognize does not provide an objective standard by which a structural limitation of the display can be ascertained or by which a processor-implemented process can be qualified.
Claims 11, 15 recite: “wherein, when the second video display apparatus displays a video, a background of the air floating video which the user of the air floating video display apparatus can visually recognize is the video of the second video display apparatus.” This claim language does not define a particular structural limitation on the video display apparatus. It is not clear what specific arrangement is required by the claim to achieve the subjective recognition of the user. Further, Applicant’s belief of what a user would subjectively recognize does not provide an objective standard by which a structural limitation of the display can be ascertained or by which a processor-implemented process can be qualified. For the remainder of the Office Action, the second display is interpreted as a console display or another indicator display within the view of the driver that displays some of the same content as the floating display.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030122930 to Schofield (“Schofield”) in view of US 20140285429 to Simmons (“Simmons”).
Regarding Claim 1: “An air floating video display apparatus comprising:
a display apparatus configured to display a video; (“in FIG. 15, a display device 120 is a view-through heads-up display” Schofield, Paragraph 55.)
a retroreflection plate configured to reflect video light from the display apparatus and display an air floating video in air by the reflected light ; and (For example, “The rays X are reflected off a first surface of windshield 72 in the direction of the driver. … a combiner other than the windshield may be used. Examples may be holographic or diffractive optical film elements or beam splitters of metal or dielectric thin films. … a mirror …” Schofield, Paragraphs 55, 56.
Cumulatively, where Schofield does not provide an example of a retroreflector plate as a mirror array (which appears to be a relevant embodiment of this claim), Simmons teaches that this is one of the known substitute structures along with mirrors and beam splitters in the context of reflective displays. See Simmons, Paragraph 2. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Schofield to use a mirror array for as taught in Simmons, in order to reflect the video display toward the viewer. See Simmons, Paragraph 2.)
an image processor configured to perform an image processing to the video displayed on the display apparatus, (“image processor 18 may generate a line in the shape of a polygon, such as a rectangle, around rear image 42 …” Schofield, Paragraph 55.)
wherein, when an air floating video including a display of an object is displayed as the air floating video displayed by the air floating video display apparatus, … the image processor performs an image processing to an image of the object displayed on the display apparatus, and (For example, “Furthermore, image processor 18 may generate a line in the shape of a polygon, such as a rectangle, around rear image 42. This provides a border around the image to differentiate the rear view from the view forward of the vehicle.” Schofield, Paragraph 55.)
the image processing has input/output characteristics that convert an input image having a pixel with low luminance into an output image having a pixel with increased luminance.” (“image processor 18 would typically provide a signal on luminance intensity line 102 that would switch the intensity level of display 20 between two intensity levels,” providing pixels with increased on decreased luminance for improved visibility. See Schofield, Paragraph 60.)
Regarding Claim 2: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a background of the air floating video which a user of the air floating video display apparatus can visually recognize is an inside of a housing of the air floating video display apparatus, and a region of the object included in the air floating video is separately recognized from the inside of the housing of the air floating video display apparatus, which is the background of the air floating video, by the image processing with the input/output characteristics by the image processor.” (See reasons for rejection under section 112. To the extent that the claim language refers to combining the display image with the background of the field of view, prior art teaches: “The rays X are reflected off a first surface of windshield 72 in the direction of the driver. Windshield 72 acts as a combiner which combines the image displayed by display 120 with a portion of the forward field of view 70 observed by the driver. … Furthermore, image processor 18 may generate a line in the shape of a polygon, such as a rectangle, around rear image 42. This provides a border around the image to differentiate the rear view from the view forward of the vehicle.” See Schofield, Paragraph 55.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein even an object including a pixel having a luminance value of 0 in pixels constituting the object before the image processing is converted into a state where a pixel having a luminance value of 0 is not included in the pixels constituting the object by the image processing with the input/output characteristics, and the converted object is displayed in the air floating video.” (“the system automatically adjusts display brightness according to ambient light changes. … Furthermore, individual pixel groups may be controlled in order to selectively compensate for bright or dark spots,” thus there are multiple operating modes by which the dark pixels would be compensated. See Schofield, Paragraphs 60, 83.)
Regarding Claim 4: “An air floating video display apparatus comprising:
a display apparatus configured to display a video; (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
a retroreflection plate con figured to reflect video light from the display apparatus and display an air floating video in air by the reflected light; and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
a housing, (“Housing 88 may be adjustably mounted,” Schofield, Paragraph 57.)
wherein the housing has a window on a side opposite to a side from which a user of the air floating video display apparatus visually recognizes the air floating video, and (For example, see housing 20A in Schofield Fig. 16, where the housing window faces the reflective surface is a direction opposite to the direction of the user. Schofield, Paragraph 57.)
wherein, when the user visually recognizes the air floating video, the air floating video is displayed in front of a background of the air floating video display apparatus which the user can visually recognize through the window.” (See reasons for rejection under section 112. Further, to the extent that the claim language refers to combining the display image with the background of the field of view, prior art teaches: “The rays X are reflected off a first surface of windshield 72 in the direction of the driver. Windshield 72 acts as a combiner which combines the image displayed by display 120 with a portion of the forward field of view 70 observed by the driver.” See Schofield, Paragraph 55.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 4, wherein a mechanism configured to switch the window of the housing into a light-shielding state is provided on the window located on the side opposite to the side from which the user of the air floating video display apparatus visually recognizes the air floating video.” (See display apparatus with the window of the housing pointing in the opposite direction from the user in Schofield, Fig. 16. “The light rays then pass through a monochrome liquid crystal display with opposing linear polarizers 118 which is supplied with a video signal by image processor 18. … is a transmissive backlit liquid crystal display.” Schofield, Paragraphs 61-62.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 4, wherein an electronically-controlled transmittance variable unit is provided on the window of the housing located on the side opposite to the side from which the user of the air floating video display apparatus visually recognizes the air floating video.” (See display apparatus with the window of the housing pointing in the opposite direction from the user in Schofield, Fig. 16. “The light rays then pass through a monochrome liquid crystal display with opposing linear polarizers 118 which is supplied with a video signal by image processor 18. … is a transmissive backlit liquid crystal display.” Schofield, Paragraphs 61-62.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 4, comprising
an image processor configured to perform an image processing to the video displayed on the display apparatus, (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
wherein, when an air floating video including a display of an object is displayed as the air floating video displayed by the air floating video display apparatus, the image processor performs an image processing to an image of the object displayed on the display apparatus, and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
the image processing has input/output characteristics that convert an input image having a pixel with low luminance into an output image having a pixel with increased luminance, and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
wherein a background of the air floating video which the user of the air floating video display apparatus can visually recognize is a scenery on a rear side of the air floating video display apparatus which the user can visually recognize through the window, and (See reasons for rejection under section 112 and in Claim 4.)
a region of the object included in the air floating video is separately recognized from the scenery on the rear side of the air floating video display apparatus, which is the background of the air floating video, by the image processing with the input/output characteristics by the image processor.” (For example, “As also may be seen by reference to FIG. 3, display 20 may additionally include indicia such as the readout of a compass 54, vehicle speed 56, turn signals 58, and the like as well as other graphical or video displays, such as a navigation display, a map display, and a forwardfacing vision system. In this manner, rearview vision system 12 may be a compass vision system or an information vision system.” Schofield, Paragraph 60. As noted above this display content can be used “in combination with dashboard displays,” or rearview vision displays which display parts of the same objects and information. Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 78.)
Regarding Claim 8: “An air floating video display apparatus comprising:
a display apparatus configured to display a video; (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
a retroreflection plate configured to reflect video light from the display apparatus and display an air floating video in air by the reflected light; and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
a transmissive self-luminous video display apparatus, wherein the air floating video is formed after the video light from the display apparatus reflected the retroreflection plate and (“The light rays then pass through a dielectric green filter 112 which passes light in a specific region of the green portion of the spectrum and through a hot mirror 114” Schofield, Paragraph 61.)
passes through the transmissive self-luminous video display apparatus.” (“The light rays then pass through a monochrome liquid crystal display with opposing linear polarizers 118 which is supplied with a video signal by image processor 18. … is a transmissive backlit liquid crystal display.” Schofield, Paragraph 61.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The air flowing video display apparatus according to claim 8, wherein a brightness of a video of the transmissive self-luminous video display apparatus js reduced when a first state in which the video of the transmissive self-luminous video display apparatus is displayed without displaying the air floating video is switched to a second state in which both the air floating video and the video of the transmissive self--luminous video display apparatus are displayed.” (See additional displays in Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 60, 78
For example, “Additionally, a comfort level setting may be provided to allow the driver to adjust to a preferred brightness at one ambient light condition. Thereafter, the system automatically adjusts display brightness according to ambient light changes.” Thus, if another provides ambient illumination at the same time, the reflective display is configured to adjust is brightness in response and according to user configuration.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The air flowing video display apparatus according to claim 8, wherein an absorptive polarization plate is provided on a surface of the transmissive self-luminous video display apparatus on a side opposite to the air floating video.” (“Light rays of the image generated by image generator 74 next pass through an anti-reflective coated cover glass 120 which is joined with a left-hand circular polarizer 122 which is bonded to this cover glass.” Schofield, Paragraph 62.)
Regarding Claim 11. “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 8, comprising
an image processor configured to perform an image processing to the video displayed on the display apparatus, (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
wherein, when an air floating video including a display of an object is displayed as the air floating video displayed by the air floating video display apparatus, the image processor performs an image processing to an image of the object displayed on the display apparatus, and the image processing has input/output characteristics that convert an input image having a pixel with low luminance into an output image having a pixel with increased luminance, and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
wherein, when the transmissive self-luminous video display apparatus displays a video, a background of the air floating video which the user of the air floating video dis play apparatus can visually recognize is the video of the transmissive self-luminous video display apparatus, and (For example, this arrangement can be uses “in combination with dashboard displays,” or rearview vision displays which a user can recognize in the background. Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 78.)
a region of the object included in the air floating video is separately recognized from the video of the transmissive self-luminous video display apparatus , which is the background of the air floating video, by the image processing with the input/output characteristics by the image processor. (For example, “As also may be seen by reference to FIG. 3, display 20 may additionally include indicia such as the readout of a compass 54, vehicle speed 56, turn signals 58, and the like as well as other graphical or video displays, such as a navigation display, a map display, and a forwardfacing vision system. In this manner, rearview vision system 12 may be a compass vision system or an information vision system.” Schofield, Paragraph 60. As noted above this display content can be used “in combination with dashboard displays,” or rearview vision displays which display parts of the same objects and information. Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 78.)
Regarding Claim 12: “An air floating video display apparatus comprising :
a display apparatus configured to display a video; (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
a retroreflection plate configured to reflect video light from the display apparatus and display an air floating video in air by the reflected light; and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
a second display apparatus, wherein the second display apparatus is arranged so as to display a video from a rear side of the air floating video toward a side of the user when the user visually recognizes the air floating video.” (For example, this arrangement can be used “in combination with dashboard displays,” or rearview vision displays. Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 78.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 12: wherein a brightness of the video of the second display apparatus is reduced when a first state in which the video of the second display apparatus displayed without displaying the air floating video is switched to a second state in which both the air floating video and the video of the second display apparatus are displayed.” (See additional displays in Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 60, 78
For example, “Additionally, a comfort level setting may be provided to allow the driver to adjust to a preferred brightness at one ambient light condition. Thereafter, the system automatically adjusts display brightness according to ambient light changes.” Thus, if another provides ambient illumination at the same time, the reflective display is configured to adjust is brightness in response and according to user configuration.)
Regarding Claim 14: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 12, wherein an absorptive polarization plate is provided on a surface of a cover glass of a video display surface of the second display apparatus.” (“Light rays of the image generated by image generator 74 next pass through an anti-reflective coated cover glass 120 which is joined with a left-hand circular polarizer 122 which is bonded to this cover glass.” Schofield, Paragraph 62.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The air floating video display apparatus according to claim 12, comprising
an image processor configured to perform an image processing to the video displayed on the display apparatus, (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
wherein, when an air floating video including a display of an object is displayed as the air floating video displayed by the air floating video display apparatus, the image processor performs an image processing to an image of the object displayed on the display apparatus, and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
the image processing has input/output characteristics that convert an input image having a pixel with low luminance into an output image having a pixel with increased luminance, and (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1.)
wherein, when the second video display apparatus displays a video, a background of the air floating video which the user of the air floating video display apparatus can visually recognize is the video of the second video display apparatus, (For example, this arrangement can be uses “in combination with dashboard displays,” or rearview vision displays which a user can recognize in the background. Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 78.)
and a region of the object included in the air floating video is separately recognized from the video of the second video display apparatus, which is the background of the air floating video, by the image processing with the input/output characteristics by the image processor.” (For example, “As also may be seen by reference to FIG. 3, display 20 may additionally include indicia such as the readout of a compass 54, vehicle speed 56, turn signals 58, and the like as well as other graphical or video displays, such as a navigation display, a map display, and a forwardfacing vision system. In this manner, rearview vision system 12 may be a compass vision system or an information vision system.” Schofield, Paragraph 60. As noted above this display content can be used “in combination with dashboard displays,” or rearview vision displays which display parts of the same objects and information. Schofield, Paragraphs 4, 78.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483