CTFR 18/768,848 CTFR 88067 DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to the amended limitations of claims 1, 5-11, 15-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 5-11, 15-20, 21, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine (US 20160272215 A1), in view of Tso et al (US 20240264437 A1), and further in view of Haverkamp (US 9791694 B1) . RE claim 1, Laine teaches A computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (Abstract, Figs 3-5, [0014]) comprising: receiving sensor data detected by a sensor system of a vehicle, the sensor data indicating an object moving toward the vehicle (Figs 1-3, 6-7, [0028], [0084], [0087]); determining, based on the sensor data, that the object is located outside of a line of sight of a driver of the vehicle (Figs 3-5, [0058]); determining that a trajectory of the object and a trajectory of the vehicle will cross ([0048], [0014], [0055]); and based on determining that the object is located outside of the line of sight of the driver of the vehicle and determining that the trajectory of the object and the trajectory of the vehicle will cross, displaying, via displays, a graphical alert alerting the driver of the vehicle to the object that is located outside of the line of sight of the driver (Figs 3, 6, [0016], [0062]). Laine is silent RE: wherein the head-up displays include an augmented reality head-up display and a blackout head-up display, and wherein displaying the graphical alert comprises: generating an augmented reality image overlay; generating a virtual image; and projecting the augmented reality image overlay and the virtual image on a windshield of the vehicle simultaneously, wherein projecting the augmented reality image overlay and the virtual image on the windshield of the vehicle comprises: projecting, via the augmented reality head-up display, the augmented reality image overlay on a clear portion of the windshield through which the driver perceives areas outside the vehicle, wherein the augmented reality image overlay is projected in a location on the clear portion of the windshield within the line of sight of the driver; and projecting, via the blackout head-up display, the virtual image on a blackout portion of the windshield comprising an opaque area of the windshield. However Tso teaches head-up displays include an augmented reality head-up display and a blackout head-up display, in Figs 1-2, abstract, [0015], [0060]-[0061], [0074], [0118], [0129] etc to generate and display AR/virtual images in different regions of the windshield simultaneously. Tso further teaches projecting, via the blackout head-up display, the virtual image on a blackout portion of the windshield comprising an opaque area of the windshield in Figs 1-2, abstract, [0074] etc. In addition Haverkamp teaches generating an augmented reality image overlay; projecting the augmented reality image overlay comprises: projecting, via the augmented reality head-up display, the augmented reality image overlay on a clear portion of the windshield through which the driver perceives areas outside the vehicle, wherein the augmented reality image overlay is projected in a location on the clear portion of the windshield within the line of sight of the driver in Figs 2, 4-6, abstract, col 3 lines 63-67, col 4 lines 1-11 that overlays important AR/VR images onto a windshield of the vehicle to draw immediate driver attention. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Laine a system and method of wherein the head-up displays include an augmented reality head-up display and a blackout head-up display, and wherein displaying the graphical alert comprises: generating an augmented reality image overlay; generating a virtual image; and projecting the augmented reality image overlay and the virtual image on a windshield of the vehicle simultaneously, wherein projecting the augmented reality image overlay and the virtual image on the windshield of the vehicle comprises: projecting, via the augmented reality head-up display, the augmented reality image overlay on a clear portion of the windshield through which the driver perceives areas outside the vehicle, wherein the augmented reality image overlay is projected in a location on the clear portion of the windshield within the line of sight of the driver; and projecting, via the blackout head-up display, the virtual image on a blackout portion of the windshield comprising an opaque area of the windshield, combining the teachings of Tso and Haverkamp, in order to effectively warn the user effectively for the probable crash event with both the augmented reality images as an overlay and the virtual image in the blackout portion onto the windshield on the LOS to draw immediate driver attention and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience. RE claim 5, Laine as modified by Tso and Haverkamp teaches wherein the augmented reality image overlay is different from the virtual image (Laine [0062], Tso 1-2, abstract, [0015], [0060]-[0061], [0074], Haverkamp Figs 2, 4-6, abstract, col 3 lines 63-67, col 4 lines 1-11). RE claim 6, Laine teaches wherein the sensor system comprises one or more of: cameras; radio detection and ranging (RADAR); and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) ([0028]-[0029]). RE claim 7, Laine teaches wherein determining that a trajectory of the object and a trajectory of the vehicle will cross comprises: receiving vehicle data; calculating, based on the sensor data, the trajectory of the object; calculating, based on the vehicle data, the trajectory of the vehicle; and determining whether the trajectory of the object and the trajectory of the vehicle cross (Fig 3, [0048], [0053], [0055]). RE claim 8, Laine teaches wherein the operations further comprise determining, based on the trajectory of the object and the trajectory of the vehicle, a time to collision between the object and the vehicle ([0055]). RE claim 9, Laine teaches wherein the operations further comprise generating the graphical alert based on the time to collision between the object and the vehicle ([0056]). RE claim 10, Laine as modified by Tso and Haverkamp teaches wherein displaying, via the head-up displays, the graphical alert alerting the driver of the vehicle to the object that is located outside of the line of sight of the driver comprises displaying the graphical alert on a windshield of the vehicle to indicate a direction of the object (Laine [0062], Tso Figs 1-2, abstract, [0015], [0060]-[0061], [0074]). RE claim 21, Laine as modified by Tso and Haverkamp teaches wherein the graphical alert comprises images in varying sizes, colors, or flashing elements (Laine [0062]). Claims 11, 15-20, 24 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1, 6-10, 21 respectively and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Laine teaches A system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions (Fig 2, [0017]- [0018]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 22-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine as modified by Tso and Haverkamp, and further in view of Wu et al (US 20200293064 A1) . RE claim 22, Laine as modified by Tso and Haverkamp is silent RE wherein the sensor system provides 360 degree surround sensing of an environment of the vehicle. However Wu teaches in [0035], [0145]-[0146] to provide a surround view be used for park assistance, surround view, rear collision warnings, and creating and updating the occupancy grid. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Laine as modified by Tso and Haverkamp a system and method wherein the sensor system provides 360 degree surround sensing of an environment of the vehicle, as suggested by Wu, to be used for park assistance, surround view, rear collision warnings, and creating and updating the occupancy grid. and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience. RE claim 23, Laine as modified by Tso and Haverkamp is silent RE wherein the graphical alert is configured based on an urgency indicated by a time to collision between the object and the vehicle. However Wu teaches in Fig 1, [0030], [0033] to provide a surround view be used for park assistance, surround view, rear collision warnings, and creating and updating the occupancy grid. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Laine as modified by Tso and Haverkamp a system and method herein the graphical alert is configured based on an urgency indicated by a time to collision between the object and the vehicle, as suggested by Wu, to effectively alert the driver to a hazard for corrective action based on the urgency and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience. Claims 25-26 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 22-23 respectively and therefore rejected under the same rationale . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (See attaches 892) . 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 SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm. 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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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. /Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614 Application/Control Number: 18/768,848 Page 2 Art Unit: 2614 Application/Control Number: 18/768,848 Page 3 Art Unit: 2614 Application/Control Number: 18/768,848 Page 4 Art Unit: 2614 Application/Control Number: 18/768,848 Page 5 Art Unit: 2614 Application/Control Number: 18/768,848 Page 6 Art Unit: 2614 Application/Control Number: 18/768,848 Page 7 Art Unit: 2614 Application/Control Number: 18/768,848 Page 8 Art Unit: 2614 Application/Control Number: 18/768,848 Page 9 Art Unit: 2614
Prosecution Insights