DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 action is in response to amendments/remarks for application 18688497 filed on 03/12/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 10 are presented for examination.
Prior Art Rejections
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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, 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, 2, 5-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusanagi et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0218713 A1) in view of Sato et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0269370 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Kusanagi teaches a method for displaying a virtual image of a head-up display of a transport (Kusanagi, Fig. 1, HUD 100), the method comprising:
determining a horizon or a vanishing point relative to an observer in the transport (Kusanagi, Figs. 10A-10C and [0093], vanishing point of the virtual image is defined as a point at which a straight line passing through a center point of the lower edge of the display area and a predetermined point at the upper edge of the display area intersects with the horizontal line as seen from the driver.);
subdividing the virtual image to be displayed to the observer into a plurality of partial areas, wherein the partial areas are trapezoidal of varying sizes, and have a decreasing size extending from an edge region of the image to be displayed to the horizon, and/or to the vanishing point (Kusanagi, Figs. 10A-10C and [0097] inter-vehicle indication have trapezoid shapes and gets smaller as it gets closer to the vanishing point of virtual image).
Kusanagi does not seem to explicitly teach determining masking areas for individual partial areas of the image to be displayed; and
outputting a warning signal when the determined masking area exceeds a permissible size for at least one of the partial areas.
However, in a related art of head-up display for a vehicle, Sato teaches determining masking areas for individual partial areas of the image to be displayed (Sato, [0015], [0075], if dirty area is greater than equal to predetermined range; Sato, [0070], determine if dirty area overlaps with driving information display); and
outputting a warning signal when the determined masking area exceeds a permissible size for at least one of the partial areas (Sato, [0015], [0075], execute a warning process).
Before the time of the first effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to further include the determine masking of the display area as suggested by Sato in the head-up display of Kusanagi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide the driver with a display that doesn’t annoy the driver while making a clear view for the driver (Sato, [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Kusanagi in view of Sato teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches when determining the masking areas, a transparency of the partial areas is considered as a measure of the masking area (Sato, [0059], glare area can also determine a change of display region, wherein glare area is an area that has reduced visibility but not completely blocked, i.e., partial transparent).
Regarding claim 5, Kusanagi in view of Sato teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches determining the horizon is carried out by determining an inclination of the transport and/or determining the vanishing point is carried out by determining a viewing direction of an observer (Kusanagi, [0092]-[0093], vanishing point is based on the direction viewed from the driver).
Regarding claim 6, Kusanagi in view of Sato teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches at least one measure for reducing the masking is implemented in response to the warning signal (Sato, [0076], windshield wiper may be operated to remove dirty area of the make the dirty area smaller; Sato, Fig. 13, move display to a different area).
Regarding claim 7, Kusanagi in view of Sato teaches the limitations of claim 6 and further teaches a display of image element in the region of the horizon or in the region of the vanishing point is prevented (Kusanagi, Figs. 10A-10C image is not displayed at the vanishing point of virtual image).
Regarding claim 9, Kusanagi in view of Sato teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches a device for reducing masking by a virtual image of a head-up display of a transport, the device comprising a processor (Kusanagi, Fig. 2, CPU) and a non-transitory memory (Kusanagi, Fig. 2, and [0052], ROM stores image processing program that is executed by the CPU to control operation of the HUD) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, perform the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Kusanagi in view of Sato teaches the limitations of claim 9 and further teaches the device is configured in a head-up display (Kusanagi, Fig. 1, HUD 100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose the technical features of the claimed invention in context as a whole. Specifically, the checking to ascertain whether the determined masking area exceeds a permissible size for two or more adjacent partial areas before outputting a warning signal in the manner claimed as a whole, is not sufficiently taught or suggested in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “trapezoids are how the image is analyzed”, “[t]he partial areas are based on an edge of the virtual image to be displayed and are sized and shaped for computational masing analysis” and “a virtual image to identify potential masking caused by the image itself, i.e., potential occlusion of real-world objects by the content of the virtual image”) are not recited in the rejected claims. The claims merely recite the virtual image is subdivided and masking areas are determined. The claims do not recite how the virtual images are analyzed with respect to their trapezoid shapes. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 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 DONG HUI LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm 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, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/DONG HUI LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights