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 office action is in response to Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/22/2025, for application number 18/711,786 filed on 05/20/2024, in which claims 1-10 were previously presented for examination.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are amended.
Claim 4 is canceled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/22/2025 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 10/01/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101: The rejection of claim 7 for being ineligible is withdrawn, as the amended claim has properly addressed the rejections recited in the Non-Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Office Note
Applicant is advised to carefully amend the claims. All amendments filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121. See MPEP § 714.
There are multiple issues regarding Applicant’s claim amendments which necessitated claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “tilting a curved mirror about a in such a way” (emphasis added). The limitation includes grammatical errors. The Office has interpreted the recitation as “tilting a curved mirror in such a way” for examining purposes.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 which is canceled. The Office has treated claim 5 as a dependent claim of claim 1 for examining purposes.
Claim 6 recites “a curved mirror.” However, the recitation is first introduced in claim 1. The Office has interpreted the recitation as “the curved mirror” for examining purposes.
Claim 9 is amended to delete the limitation “an evaluation module for determining whether there is a driving situation requiring action in which it may be necessary to present augmented reality information at the edge of or outside an” previously presented without proper markings, such as double brackets or strike-through. It is unclear whether the deletion is mistakenly made.
Claim 9 recites “augmentation region” without a proper article.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the augmented reality information” in lines 4-5 and “the driving situation” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim(s) and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagschik et al. (US 2019/0316928 A1, hereinafter “Bagschik”) in view of Choi et al. (US 2018/0157036 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 1, Bagschik discloses a method for controlling an augmented reality display device of a vehicle (Bagschik at para. [0038]: “a head-up-display apparatus 2 for a transportation vehicle 1”), the method comprising:
determining whether there is a driving situation requiring action in which it may be necessary to present augmented reality information at the edge of or outside an augmentation region of the augmented reality display device (Bagschik at para. [0039]: “In a first operation, a road profile ahead of the transportation vehicle is determined 10” “The content depicted by the head-up-display apparatus is then displaced 11 according to the determined road profile”); and
adjusting the augmentation region with respect to an observer (Bagschik at para. [0040]: “In FIG. 3, the content 3 is not displaced according to the road profile, i.e., the projected image is fixed at a certain distance ahead of the transportation vehicle 1” “In FIG. 4, on the other hand, the content 3 is displaced according to the road profile, as indicated in FIG. 4 by the displacement vectors 50 shown”; para. [0041]: “The direction and size of the displacement, which are indicated in FIG. 6 by the displacement vectors 50 shown, are in this case dependent on the road profile and possibly on the optical beam path within the head-up-display apparatus”).
However, Bagschik does not explicitly state:
determining augmented reality information is intended to be presented on a lane at a distance from a current lane based on the driving situation;
adjusting the augmentation region with respect to an observer by tilting a curved mirror about a in such a way that the augmented reality information to be presented can be presented within the augmentation region on the lane at the distance from the current lane.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches:
determining augmented reality information is intended to be presented on a lane at a distance from a current lane based on the driving situation (Choi at FIG. 29 and para. [0482]: “the controller 801 may … display a second graphic object (second image) 2902 matching a road corresponding to a lane to be changed when changing a traveling lane according to the intention of the driver (e.g., when a left tum signal lamp is turned on)) and indicating an inter-vehicle distance of the lane to be changed in a second region of the second virtual image”);
adjusting the augmentation region with respect to an observer by tilting a curved mirror about a in such a way that the augmented reality information to be presented can be presented within the augmentation region on the lane at the distance from the current lane (Choi at para. [0468]: “the controller 801 may … change the inclination of the first reflection mirror 3 to move the second virtual image 2202 to the left or right”; The reflection mirror 3 is curved as shown in FIGS. 8-19; para. [0484]: “the controller 801 may … display the second graphic object 2902 matching an adjacent road corresponding to the traveling lane to be changed and indicating a distance-to-vehicle on the adjacent road in the second region of the second virtual image 2202 when a traveling lane change is requested”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bagschik by adding the determination and adjustment of Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bagschik in view of Choi is to improve driving safety.
Regarding claim 2, Bagschik in view of Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Bagschik further discloses wherein the presence of the driving situation requiring action is determined when cornering is imminent or takes place (Bagschik at para. [0041]: “When there is a curve in the road profile ahead of the transportation vehicle, the generated content 3 is arranged eccentrically on the image generation unit 6”).
Regarding claim 3, Bagschik in view of Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 2.
Bagschik further discloses wherein cornering is determined from data from an acceleration sensor, from data from an environmental sensor system or from map data (Bagschik at para. [0042]: “The apparatus 20 has an input 21 for receiving data permitting determination of a road profile ahead of the transportation vehicle. By way of example, these can be data pertaining to the steering angle of the steering wheel of the transportation vehicle, navigation data of a navigation system of the transportation vehicle, data of an ambient sensor system of the transportation vehicle or information pertaining to eye movements of the driver”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagschik in view of Choi further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2015/0204687 A1, hereinafter “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 5, Bagschik in view of Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 4. (The office has treated claim 5 as a dependent claim of claim 1 due to the dependency issue as indicated above in the Claim Objections section)
However, Bagschik in view of Choi does not explicitly state wherein augmented reality information is presented on the lane at a distance from the current lane when a lane change of the vehicle is due or a lane change of a vehicle in front takes place.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoon teaches wherein augmented reality information is presented on the lane at a distance from the current lane when a lane change of the vehicle is due or a lane change of a vehicle in front takes place (Yoon at para. [0070]: “when the graphic information generation unit 165 receives the lane change information 63 instructing a change to the left lane, the graphic object information 65 including a left lane graphic object 65A visually representing a change to the left lane and the display region information 69 including the left center display region R4 selected by the user are received, and the lane change graphic information 16 obtained by mapping the left lane graphic object 65A on the left center display region R4 is generated”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bagschik in view of Choi by adding the presentation of Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bagschik in view of Choi further in view of Yoon is to improve driving safety.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagschik in view of Choi further in view of Ito et al. (US 2017/0343799 A1, hereinafter “Ito”).
Regarding claim 6, Bagschik in view of Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Choi further teaches wherein the adjustment of the position of the augmentation region involves tilting a curved mirror of the augmented reality display device ((Choi at para. [0468]: “the controller 801 may … change the inclination of the first reflection mirror 3 to move the second virtual image 2202 to the left or right”; The reflection mirror 3 is curved as shown in FIGS. 8-19; para. [0484]: “the controller 801 may … display the second graphic object 2902 matching an adjacent road corresponding to the traveling lane to be changed and indicating a distance-to-vehicle on the adjacent road in the second region of the second virtual image 2202 when a traveling lane change is requested”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bagschik by adding the curved mirror of Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bagschik in view of Choi is to improve driving safety.
However, Bagschik in view of Choi does not explicitly state:
tilting a curved mirror of the augmented reality display device about a vertical axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches tilting a curved mirror of the augmented reality display device about a vertical axis (Ito at FIGS. 5-6 and para. [0045]: “a reflecting mirror 22 (reflecting device) to reflect the pickup image information projected by the projector 21 toward the windshield glass 2 (or the room mirror 7)” “a drive portion 25 which is configured to rotate the reflecting mirror 22 around a lateral axes”; FIGS. 5-6 shows that the reflecting mirror 22 is curved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bagschik in view of Choi by adding the vertical axis of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bagschik in view of Choi further in view of Ito is to expand field of view.
Regarding claim 7, Bagschik discloses a computer program having instructions stored on a nontransitory computer readable medium which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the steps of a method (Bagschik at para. [0043]: “an apparatus 30 for controlling a display of a head-up-display apparatus for a transportation vehicle. The apparatus 30 has a processor 32 and a memory 31. By way of example, the apparatus 30 is a computer or a controller”), the method comprising:
determining whether there is a driving situation requiring an action in which it may be necessary to present augmented reality information at the edge of or outside an augmentation region of the augmented reality display device (Bagschik at para. [0039]: “In a first operation, a road profile ahead of the transportation vehicle is determined 10” “The content depicted by the head-up-display apparatus is then displaced 11 according to the determined road profile”); and
adjusting the augmentation region with respect to an observer (Bagschik at para. [0040]: “In FIG. 3, the content 3 is not displaced according to the road profile, i.e., the projected image is fixed at a certain distance ahead of the transportation vehicle 1” “In FIG. 4, on the other hand, the content 3 is displaced according to the road profile, as indicated in FIG. 4 by the displacement vectors 50 shown”; para. [0041]: “The direction and size of the displacement, which are indicated in FIG. 6 by the displacement vectors 50 shown, are in this case dependent on the road profile and possibly on the optical beam path within the head-up-display apparatus”).
However, Bagschik does not explicitly state:
determining augmented reality information is intended to be presented on a lane at a distance from a current lane based on the driving situation; and
adjusting the augmentation region with respect to an observer by tilting a curved mirror about a vertical axis in such a way that the augmented reality information to be presented can be presented within the augmentation region on the lane at the distance from the current lane.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches:
determining augmented reality information is intended to be presented on a lane at a distance from a current lane based on the driving situation (Choi at FIG. 29 and para. [0482]: “the controller 801 may … display a second graphic object (second image) 2902 matching a road corresponding to a lane to be changed when changing a traveling lane according to the intention of the driver (e.g., when a left tum signal lamp is turned on)) and indicating an inter-vehicle distance of the lane to be changed in a second region of the second virtual image”); and
adjusting the augmentation region with respect to an observer by tilting a curved mirror (Choi at para. [0468]: “the controller 801 may … change the inclination of the first reflection mirror 3 to move the second virtual image 2202 to the left or right”; The reflection mirror 3 is curved as shown in FIGS. 8-19; para. [0484]: “the controller 801 may … display the second graphic object 2902 matching an adjacent road corresponding to the traveling lane to be changed and indicating a distance-to-vehicle on the adjacent road in the second region of the second virtual image 2202 when a traveling lane change is requested”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program of Bagschik by adding the determination and adjustment of Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the program of Bagschik in view of Choi is to improve driving safety.
However, Bagschik in view of Choi does not explicitly state:
tilting a curved mirror about a vertical axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches:
tilting a curved mirror about a vertical axis (Ito at FIGS. 5-6 and para. [0045]: “a reflecting mirror 22 (reflecting device) to reflect the pickup image information projected by the projector 21 toward the windshield glass 2 (or the room mirror 7)” “a drive portion 25 which is configured to rotate the reflecting mirror 22 around a lateral axes”; FIGS. 5-6 shows that the reflecting mirror 22 is curved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the program of Bagschik in view of Choi by adding the vertical axis of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bagschik in view of Choi further in view of Ito is to expand field of view.
Regarding claim 8, Bagschik discloses a device for controlling an augmented reality display device of a vehicle (Bagschik at para. [0038]: “a head-up-display apparatus 2 for a transportation vehicle 1”), comprising:
an evaluation module for determining whether there is a driving situation requiring action in which it may be necessary to present augmented reality information at the edge of or outside an augmentation region of the augmented reality display device and (Bagschik at para. [0039]: “In a first operation, a road profile ahead of the transportation vehicle is determined 10” “The content depicted by the head-up-display apparatus is then displaced 11 according to the determined road profile”); and
a control module for adjusting a position of the augmentation region with respect to an observer (Bagschik at para. [0040]: “In FIG. 3, the content 3 is not displaced according to the road profile, i.e., the projected image is fixed at a certain distance ahead of the transportation vehicle 1” “In FIG. 4, on the other hand, the content 3 is displaced according to the road profile, as indicated in FIG. 4 by the displacement vectors 50 shown”; para. [0041]: “The direction and size of the displacement, which are indicated in FIG. 6 by the displacement vectors 50 shown, are in this case dependent on the road profile and possibly on the optical beam path within the head-up-display apparatus”).
However, Bagschik does not explicitly state:
the augmented reality information is intended to be presented on a lane at a distance from a current lane based on the driving situation,
a control module for adjusting a position of the augmentation region with respect to an observer by tilting a curved mirror about a vertical axis in such a way that the augmented reality information to be presented can be presented within the augmentation region on the lane at the distance from the current lane.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches:
the augmented reality information is intended to be presented on a lane at a distance from a current lane based on the driving situation (Choi at FIG. 29 and para. [0482]: “the controller 801 may … display a second graphic object (second image) 2902 matching a road corresponding to a lane to be changed when changing a traveling lane according to the intention of the driver (e.g., when a left tum signal lamp is turned on)) and indicating an inter-vehicle distance of the lane to be changed in a second region of the second virtual image”),
a control module for adjusting a position of the augmentation region with respect to an observer by tilting a curved mirror information to be presented can be presented within the augmentation region on the lane at the distance from the current lane (Choi at para. [0468]: “the controller 801 may … change the inclination of the first reflection mirror 3 to move the second virtual image 2202 to the left or right”; The reflection mirror 3 is curved as shown in FIGS. 8-19; para. [0484]: “the controller 801 may … display the second graphic object 2902 matching an adjacent road corresponding to the traveling lane to be changed and indicating a distance-to-vehicle on the adjacent road in the second region of the second virtual image 2202 when a traveling lane change is requested”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bagschik by adding the augmented reality information and the control module of Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the device of Bagschik in view of Choi is to improve driving safety.
However, Bagschik in view of Choi does not explicitly state:
tilting a curved mirror about a vertical axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches:
tilting a curved mirror about a vertical axis (Ito at FIGS. 5-6 and para. [0045]: “a reflecting mirror 22 (reflecting device) to reflect the pickup image information projected by the projector 21 toward the windshield glass 2 (or the room mirror 7)” “a drive portion 25 which is configured to rotate the reflecting mirror 22 around a lateral axes”; FIGS. 5-6 shows that the reflecting mirror 22 is curved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bagschik in view of Choi by adding the vertical axis of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the device of Bagschik in view of Choi further in view of Ito is to expand field of view.
Regarding claim 9, Bagschik discloses an augmented reality display device for a vehicle (Bagschik at para. [0038]: “a head-up-display apparatus 2 for a transportation vehicle 1”), wherein the augmented reality display device comprises:
a device (Bagschik at para. [0038]: “a head-up-display apparatus 2 for a transportation vehicle 1”), comprising:
augmentation region of the augmented reality display device and (Bagschik at para. [0039]: “In a first operation, a road profile ahead of the transportation vehicle is determined 10” “The content depicted by the head-up-display apparatus is then displaced 11 according to the determined road profile”); and
a control module for adjusting a position of the augmentation region with respect to an observer (Bagschik at para. [0040]: “In FIG. 3, the content 3 is not displaced according to the road profile, i.e., the projected image is fixed at a certain distance ahead of the transportation vehicle 1” “In FIG. 4, on the other hand, the content 3 is displaced according to the road profile, as indicated in FIG. 4 by the displacement vectors 50 shown”; para. [0041]: “The direction and size of the displacement, which are indicated in FIG. 6 by the displacement vectors 50 shown, are in this case dependent on the road profile and possibly on the optical beam path within the head-up-display apparatus”).
However, Bagschik does not explicitly state:
the augmented reality information is intended to be presented on a lane at a distance from a current lane based on the driving situation,
a control module for adjusting a position of the augmentation region with respect to an observer by tilting a curved mirror about a vertical axis in such a way that the augmented reality information to be presented can be presented within the augmentation region on the lane at the distance from the current lane.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches:
the augmented reality information is intended to be presented on a lane at a distance from a current lane based on the driving situation (Choi at FIG. 29 and para. [0482]: “the controller 801 may … display a second graphic object (second image) 2902 matching a road corresponding to a lane to be changed when changing a traveling lane according to the intention of the driver (e.g., when a left tum signal lamp is turned on)) and indicating an inter-vehicle distance of the lane to be changed in a second region of the second virtual image”),
a control module for adjusting a position of the augmentation region with respect to an observer by tilting a curved mirror (Choi at para. [0468]: “the controller 801 may … change the inclination of the first reflection mirror 3 to move the second virtual image 2202 to the left or right”; The reflection mirror 3 is curved as shown in FIGS. 8-19; para. [0484]: “the controller 801 may … display the second graphic object 2902 matching an adjacent road corresponding to the traveling lane to be changed and indicating a distance-to-vehicle on the adjacent road in the second region of the second virtual image 2202 when a traveling lane change is requested”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bagschik by adding the augmented reality information and the curved mirror of Choi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the device of Bagschik in view of Choi is to improve driving safety.
However, Bagschik in view of Choi does not explicitly state:
tilting a curved mirror about a vertical axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches:
tilting a curved mirror about a vertical axis (Ito at FIGS. 5-6 and para. [0045]: “a reflecting mirror 22 (reflecting device) to reflect the pickup image information projected by the projector 21 toward the windshield glass 2 (or the room mirror 7)” “a drive portion 25 which is configured to rotate the reflecting mirror 22 around a lateral axes”; FIGS. 5-6 shows that the reflecting mirror 22 is curved).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bagschik in view of Choi by adding the vertical axis of Ito with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the device of Bagschik in view of Choi further in view of Ito is to expand field of view.
Regarding claim 10, Bagschik in view of Choi further in view of Ito teaches the augmented reality display device as claimed in claim 9.
Bagschik further discloses wherein the augmented reality display device is part of a head-up display (Bagschik at para. [0038]: “a head-up-display apparatus 2 for a transportation vehicle 1”).
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 JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights