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 Status
Applicant’s amendments filed on 05/04/2026 have been received and considered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 6-8, filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wells fails to teach or suggest “perform a first adjustment of the virtual image plane from the predetermined reference eyebox based on the occupant eyebox so that the virtual image projected into the virtual image plane is visible in the occupant eyebox.” (Remarks, page 6 final paragraph – page 7 first paragraph) Examiner responds that Wells was not depended on to teach “a first adjustment”, but rather that the primary reference of Kobayashi teaches a first adjustment (Par 33 “Based on the position of the occupant's eyes, the positions and/or orientations … of a boundary 24 of a virtual image produced by a head up display may be adjusted to achieve optimal viewing positions and/or orientations”), and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have applied the virtual image plane as taught by Wells to the adjustments as taught by Kobayashi.
Applicant further argues that Wells does not teach the amended limitation “redefin[e] a position of the virtual image plane in a three-dimensional coordinate system.” (Remarks page 7 paragraph 2-3) Examiner responds that Wells does teach redefining the position of the virtual image plane in a three dimensional coordinate system in Col 13 Line 16-24, “The vehicle control module 206 may generate correction parameters based on the reference values determined at 838 and 858 for adjusting displayed locations of far virtual images and corresponding features for each of the high, middle and low locations. The correction parameters may include x and z distance correction values, rotation angle differences, and/or other parameters for correcting locations of the far virtual images and/or the features of the far virtual images”, where x and z distance correction values are in a three dimensional coordinate system, and in Col 13 Line 51-56, “operation of the head-up display 204, including operation of the far image generating module 312 and far image transfer and modification devices 323, are adjusted based on the set reference values determined at 838 and 858 and/or the above-stated correction parameters”, where the far image transfer and modification devices are adjusted based on the x and z distance correction values, and as shown in Wells Figure 3, included below, the far image transfer and modification devices 323 correspond to the position of the far virtual image plane 324.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant finally argues that Kobayashi does not teach or suggest a virtual image plane at all, and that the combination of Kobayashi with Wells would result in an adjustment in two dimensions of image boundaries, not an adjustment of Wells’ virtual image plane (Remarks page 7 final paragraph – page 8 first paragraph). Examiner responds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have applied the virtual image plane as taught by Wells to the adjustments as taught by Kobayashi.
Claim 11 has been amended in a similar manner to claim 1, and is rejected under similar grounds.
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 1-3, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
20200184238 A1 (Kobayashi et al. hereinafter Kobayashi) in view of US 11482141 B1 (Wells et
al. hereinafter Wells).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches A system, comprising a computer including a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor (Par 20 “A processing device receives the images captured by the camera, and determines from the images a position of eyes of the occupant. The position or orientation of the mirrors and the position of the virtual image are adjusted based on the determined position of the eyes of the occupant”)
wherein a virtual image projected into the virtual image plane is visible in the
reference eyebox (Par 5 “The position of the occupant's eyebox is determined based on positions of the occupant's eyes. The position or orientation of the HUD mirror may be
automatically adjusted depending upon the position of the occupant's eyebox in order to
position the virtual image within the occupant's view.”),
determine, from sensor data, an occupant eyebox (Par 4 “In-vehicle cameras may
detect the position of the occupant's eyes”, Par 5 “The position of the occupant's eyebox is
determined based on positions of the occupant's eyes”)
and perform a first adjustment of the virtual image plane based on the occupant
eyebox so that the virtual image projected into the virtual image plane is visible in the occupant eyebox (Par 33 “Based on the position of the occupant's eyes, the positions and/or orientations … of a boundary 24 of a virtual image produced by a head up display may be adjusted to achieve optimal viewing positions and/or orientations”).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly teach determine a virtual image plane based on a and perform a first adjustment of the virtual image plane based on the occupant eyebox by redefining a position of the virtual image plane in a three-dimensional coordinate system relative to the reference eyebox so that the virtual image projected into the virtual image plane is visible in the occupant eyebox. In related endeavor, Wells teaches a far virtual image plane, which shows a far virtual image seen by the eyes of a driver, and an eyebox within a driver’s eyes are located in order to see the virtual images. (Par 26 “reflected off the windshield to provide a far virtual image, which is shown in a far virtual image plane 324”, Par 28 “The eyebox 400 may refer to a virtual box within a driver's eyes may be located in order to see the virtual images being displayed by a HUD.”, Fig 3 shows a far virtual plane (324) in relation to the eyes of a driver (326))
and perform a first adjustment of the virtual image plane based on the occupant eyebox by redefining a position of the virtual image plane in a three-dimensional coordinate system relative to the reference eyebox so that the virtual image projected into the virtual image plane is visible in the occupant eyebox (Col 13 Line 16-24 “The vehicle control module 206 may generate correction parameters based on the reference values determined at 838 and 858 for adjusting displayed locations of far virtual images and corresponding features for each of the high, middle and low locations. The correction parameters may include x and z distance correction values, rotation angle differences, and/or other parameters for correcting locations of the far virtual images and/or the features of the far virtual images”, Col 13 Line 51-56 “operation of the head-up display 204, including operation of the far image generating module 312 and far image transfer and modification devices 323, are adjusted based on the set reference values determined at 838 and 858 and/or the above-stated correction parameters”, as shown in figure 3, the virtual image plane 324 is manipulated by the far image transfer and modification devices 323, which are further adjusted based on the correction parameters, including x and z distance correction values.)
PNG
media_image1.png
338
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi to include determining a
virtual image plane with respect to a reference eyebox and redefining a position of the virtual image plane in a three-dimensional coordinate system relative to the reference eyebox as taught by Wells. Doing so would allow virtual images displayed by a HUD to be placed in view of the eyes of a driver (Par 27 “The near virtual image and the far virtual image are seen by the eyes of a driver”).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi as modified by Wells teaches the system of claim 1, and
Wells further teaches wherein the first adjustment includes translating the virtual image
plane along at least one of a lateral axis partially defining the virtual image plane, and a
vertical axis partially defining the virtual image plane and extending normal to the lateral axis
(Col 13 Line 51-56 “operation of the head-up display 204, including operation of the far image generating module 312 and far image transfer and modification devices 323, are adjusted based on the set reference values determined at 838 and 858 and/or the above-stated correction parameters”, as shown in figure 3, the virtual image plane 324 is manipulated by the far image transfer and modification devices 323, which are further adjusted based on the correction parameters, including x and z distance correction values.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Kobayashi and Wells to include wherein the first adjustment includes translating the virtual image plane along at least one of a lateral axis partially defining the virtual image plane, and a vertical axis partially defining the virtual image plane and extending normal to the lateral axis as taught by Wells. Doing so would allow virtual images displayed by a HUD to be placed in view of the eyes of a driver (Par 27 “The near virtual image and the far virtual image are seen by the eyes of a driver”).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi as modified by Wells teaches the system of claim 1, and
Wells further teaches wherein the first adjustment includes translating the virtual image
within the virtual image plane (Col 13 Line 51-56 “operation of the head-up display 204, including operation of the far image generating module 312 and far image transfer and modification devices 323, are adjusted based on the set reference values determined at 838 and 858 and/or the above-stated correction parameters”, where the far image generating module is adjusted based on the correction parameters, including x and z correction parameters.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Kobayashi and Wells to include wherein the first adjustment includes translating the virtual image within the virtual image plane. Doing so would allow virtual images displayed by a HUD to be placed in view of the eyes of a driver (Par 27 “The near virtual image and the far virtual image are seen by the eyes of a driver”).
Regarding claim 11, the method claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the method claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 2 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, the method claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi
as modified by Wells as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220155605 C1
(Lambert et al, hereinafter Lambert).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi as modified by Wells fails to teach wherein the
instructions further include instructions to perform an adjustment to a position of a seat
occupied by an occupant so that the virtual image is visible in the occupant eyebox.
In related endeavor, Lambert teaches wherein the instructions further include
instructions to perform an adjustment to a position of a seat occupied by an occupant so that the virtual image is visible in the occupant eyebox (Claim 1 “a head up display configured to
produce a virtual image that is visible to a driver of the motor vehicle when he is sitting in a
driver's seat and his eyes are above a first vertical level and below a second vertical level …
receive the height signal from the eye tracking system; and control the motorized seat height
adjustment module based on the height signal to move the driver's eyes to a vertical position
above the first vertical level and below the second vertical level.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi as modified by Wells to
include an adjustment to the seat height based on the driver’s eye position as taught by
Lambert. Doing so would allow the virtual image to be made visible to the driver (Claim 1 “a
head up display configured to produce a virtual image that is visible to a driver of the motor
vehicle when he is sitting in a driver's seat and his eyes are above a first vertical level and below
a second vertical level … receive the height signal from the eye tracking system; and control the
motorized seat height adjustment module based on the height signal to move the driver's eyes
to a vertical position above the first vertical level and below the second vertical level.”)
Regarding claim 14, the method claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 4 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable
over Kobayashi as modified by Wells as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US
20210055548 A1 (Rao et al, hereinafter Rao).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi as modified by Wells fails to explicitly teach wherein the
instructions further include instructions to perform a second adjustment of the virtual image
plane for an occupant. In related endeavor, Rao teaches wherein the instructions further
include instructions to perform a second adjustment of the virtual image plane for an occupant
(Par 41 “The moveable optic 302 may additionally or alternatively be controlled (e.g.,
automatically or based on user input) based on a vehicle and/or user context. For example, in
reaction to environmental conditions (e.g., sunlight or other light load or interference on the
windshield 308 and/or user's eyes, weather, night/day status, ambient light, etc.), content
being displayed (e.g., urgency of alerts or other content that is displayed via the display
configuration 300), user context (e.g., user experience/preferences, user age/abilities, level of
distraction experienced by the user, etc.), and/or other parameters, the moveable
optic 302 may be repositioned to adjust features of the displayed content (e.g., size/zoom,
position, orientation, contrast, distortion/alignment, color, etc.)”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi as modified by Wells to
include instructions to perform a second adjustment of the virtual image plane for an occupant
as taught by Rao. Doing so increases user experience and display flexibility (Par 21“the
disclosure describes increasing a user experience (e.g., increasing user comfort by adjusting a
depth of field of displayed images) and display flexibility relative to other display configurations
by providing movable optical elements”).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi as modified by Wells fails to explicitly teach wherein the second adjustment includes translating the virtual image plane along a longitudinal axis extending normal to the virtual image plane. In related endeavor, Rao teaches wherein the second adjustment includes translating the virtual image plane along a longitudinal axis extending normal to the virtual image plane (Par 41 “The moveable optic 302 may additionally or alternatively be controlled (e.g., automatically or based on user input) based on a vehicle and/or user context. For example, in reaction to environmental conditions (e.g., sunlight or other light load or interference on the windshield 308 and/or user's eyes, weather, night/day status, ambient light, etc.), content being displayed (e.g., urgency of alerts or other content that is displayed via the display configuration 300), user context (e.g., user experience/preferences, user age/abilities, level of distraction experienced by the user, etc.), and/or other parameters, the moveable optic 302 may be repositioned to adjust features of the displayed content (e.g., size/zoom, position, orientation, contrast, distortion/alignment, color, etc.)”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi as modified by Wells to
include wherein the second adjustment includes translating the virtual image plane along a
longitudinal axis extending normal to the virtual image plane as taught by Rao. Doing so
increases user experience and display flexibility (Par 21“the disclosure describes increasing a
user experience (e.g., increasing user comfort by adjusting a depth of field of displayed images)
and display flexibility relative to other display configurations by providing movable optical
elements”).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi as modified by Wells fails to explicitly teach wherein the instructions further include instructions to perform the second adjustment based on weather data in addition to the occupant data. In related endeavor, Rao teaches wherein the instructions further include instructions to perform the second adjustment based on weather data in addition to the occupant data (Par 41 “The moveable optic 302 may additionally or alternatively be controlled (e.g., automatically or based on user input) based on a vehicle and/or user context. For example, in reaction to environmental conditions (e.g., sunlight or other light load or interference on the windshield 308 and/or user's eyes, weather, night/day status, ambient light, etc.)”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi as modified by Wells to
include wherein the instructions further include instructions to perform the second adjustment
based on weather data in addition to the occupant data as taught by Rao. Doing so increases
user experience and display flexibility (Par 21“the disclosure describes increasing a user
experience (e.g., increasing user comfort by adjusting a depth of field of displayed images) and
display flexibility relative to other display configurations by providing movable optical
elements”).
Regarding claim 15, the method claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 5 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, the method claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 6 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the method claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 9 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Well
as modified by Kobayashi and further modified by Rao as applied to claim 5 above, and further
in view of US 20220281317 A1 (Ahn et al, hereinafter Ahn).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi as modified by Wells and further modified by Rao fail to
explicitly teach wherein the instructions further include instructions to input the occupant
data for the occupant into a machine learning program that outputs an expected distance
from the occupant eyebox to the virtual image plane. In related endeavor, Ahn teaches input
the occupant data for the occupant into a machine learning program that outputs an expected
distance from the occupant eyebox to the virtual image plane (Par 105 “detect the positions of
the eyes of the driver from the driver image by using a known image processing algorithm or an
artificial intelligence (AI) model including deep learning”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi as modified by Wells to
include input the occupant data for the occupant into a machine learning program that outputs
an expected distance from the occupant eyebox to the virtual image plane as taught by Ahn.
Doing so would allow a virtual image to be adjusted based on the distance of the eyes (Par 19
“and the method may further include calculating a vergence distance between both eyes of the
driver and the gaze point, and adjusting, based on the vergence distance, a focal length of the
image projected on the transparent screen.”)
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi as modified by Wells and further modified by Rao and Ahn
teach the system of claim 7. Rao further teaches wherein the second adjustment includes
translating the virtual image plane along a longitudinal axis extending normal to the virtual
image plane so that the virtual image plane is spaced from the occupant eyebox along the
longitudinal axis by the expected distance (See Rao Par 41 "The moveable optic 302 may
additionally or alternatively be controlled (e.g., automatically or based on user input) based on
a vehicle and/or user context. For example, in reaction to environmental conditions (e.g.,
sunlight or other light load or interference on the windshield 308 and/or user's eyes, weather,
night/day status, ambient light, etc.), content being displayed (e.g., urgency of alerts or other
content that is displayed via the display configuration 300), user context (e.g., user
experience/preferences, user age/abilities, level of distraction experienced by the user, etc.),
and/or other parameters, the moveable optic 302 may be repositioned to adjust features of
the displayed content (e.g., size/zoom, position, orientation, contrast, distortion/alignment,
color, etc.)."
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi as modified by Wells and
further modified by Rao and Ahn to include wherein the second adjustment includes translating
the virtual image plane along a longitudinal axis extending normal to the virtual image plane. Doing so increases user experience and display flexibility (Rao Par 21“the disclosure describes
increasing a user experience (e.g., increasing user comfort by adjusting a depth of field of
displayed images) and display flexibility relative to other display configurations by providing
movable optical elements”).
Regarding claim 17, the method claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, the method claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 8 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi
as modified by Wells and further modified by Rao as applied to claim 5 above, and further in
view of Lambert.
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi as modified by Wells and further modified by Rao fail to
explicitly teach wherein the instructions further include instructions to perform an adjustment to a position of a seat occupied by the occupant so that the virtual image projected into the virtual image plane is visible in the occupant eyebox. In related endeavor, Lambert teaches instructions to perform an adjustment to a position of a seat occupied by the occupant so that a virtual image projected into the virtual image plane is visible in the occupant eyebox (Claim 1 “a head up display configured to produce a virtual image that is visible to a driver of the motor vehicle when he is sitting in a driver's seat and his eyes are above a first vertical level and below a second vertical level … receive the height signal from the eye tracking system; and control the motorized seat height adjustment module based on the height signal to move the driver's eyes to a vertical position above the first vertical level and below the second vertical level.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kobayashi as modified by Wells to
include an adjustment to the seat height based on the driver’s eye position as taught by
Lambert. Doing so would allow the virtual image to be visible to the driver (Claim 1 “a head up
display configured to produce a virtual image that is visible to a driver of the motor vehicle
when he is sitting in a driver's seat and his eyes are above a first vertical level and below a
second vertical level … receive the height signal from the eye tracking system; and control the
motorized seat height adjustment module based on the height signal to move the driver's eyes
to a vertical position above the first vertical level and below the second vertical level.”)
Regarding claim 20, the method claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 10 and is rejected
under the same rationale.
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 JOHN PATRICK GOCO whose telephone number is (571)272-5872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7:00 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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/J.P.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights