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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 13-15, and 19 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0179066) in view of Larsson et al. (US PGPUB 2025/0058770), and further in view of Tso et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0264437).
Regrading claim 1, Rider teaches a computer implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving road data including one or more of sensor data detected by a sensor system of a vehicle and third-party data, the road data indicating a road hazard moving toward the vehicle (Fig. 3, 350);
determining, based on the road data, that the road hazard is within a roadway of the vehicle (Paragraph [--52]);
determining a distance between the vehicle and the road hazard (Fig. 2A and Fig. 2B);
receiving driver features of a driver of the vehicle from a driver tracker system (Fig. 1A, #24 and #26);
simultaneously displaying a graphical alert alerting the driver of the vehicle to the road hazard, the graphical alert including an augmented reality image overlay and a virtual image, the augmented reality image overlay different from the virtual image (paragraph [0056]).
Rider et al. fails to teach a head-up display. However, in the same field of the invention, Larsson et al. teaches a selectively visualizing safety margins that uses a head-up display (paragraph [0100]}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to replace the display as taught by Rider by a head-up display as taught by Larsson in order to enabling improved road safety learning and driver coaching for the drivers.
Rider et al. in view of Larsson et al. fail to teach method comprising generating, based on the driver features and a concavity of a windshield of the vehicle, a graphical alert and wherein the virtual image slides laterally along a blackout portion of the windshield to maintain alignment with the road hazard on the display. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tso et al. teaches a head-up display system having a laminated glass with a first head-up display region and a second head-up display region, where the second head-up display region (blackout portion) includes a visible light blocking layer. See US 2024/0264437 A1, paragraphs [0006]-[0007], [0015], [0060]-[0063], [0091]-[0094], [0101]-[0110].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made, to combine Rider et al. with Larsson et al. to provide windshield-based road hazard alerting using head-up display concepts. It would further have been obvious to use the dual-region laminated windshield architecture of Tso et al. to provide a distinct display region with a visible light blocking layer, thereby improving contrast and visibility of the alert.
To the extent claim 1 recites the virtual image sliding laterally along a blackout portion of the windshield, Tso et al. teaches a second display region having a visible light blocking layer, which would have suggested placing one portion of the display in a visually distinct blackout region and repositioning it as needed to maintain visibility and alignment with the hazard.
To the extent claim 1 recites generating the graphical alert based on driver features and windshield concavity, Rider and Larsson teach windshield-based display positioning and hazard visualization, and Tso et al. teaches windshield regions configured for HUD display. It would have been obvious to account for windshield geometry and driver-facing display placement when rendering the alert, as such geometry is inherent in windshield projection-based HUD systems.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 2, Rider in view of Larsson further teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the head-up displays include an augmented reality head-up display and a blackout head-up display (Larsson, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Rider in view of Larsson further teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein simultaneously displaying, via the head-up displays, the graphical alert alerting the driver of the vehicle to the road hazard comprises:
generating the augmented reality image overlay;
generating the virtual image; and
projecting the augmented reality image overlay and the virtual image on the windshield of the vehicle simultaneously (Rider, Paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Rider in view of Larsson further teaches the method of Claim 3, wherein projecting the augmented reality image overlay and the virtual image on the windshield of the vehicle simultaneously comprises projecting the augmented reality image overlay on a clear portion of the windshield and projecting the virtual image on the blackout portion of the windshield (Larsson, paragraph [0100] and Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Rider in view of Larsson further teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the sensor system comprises one or more of:
cameras;
radio detection and ranging (RADAR); and
light detection and ranging (LIDAR) (Larsson, paragraph [0100]).
Regarding claim 7, further teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving vehicle data;
calculating, based on the vehicle data, a trajectory of the vehicle; and
determining whether the road hazard and the vehicle will interact (Larsson, paragraph [0113]).
Regarding claim 8, further teaches the method of Claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining, based on the distance between the vehicle and the road hazard and the trajectory of the vehicle, a time to interaction between the road hazard and the vehicle; and
generating the graphical alert based on the time to interaction between the road hazard and the vehicle (Larsson, paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, further teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein displaying, via the head-up displays, the graphical alert alerting the driver of the vehicle to the road hazard comprises displaying the graphical alert on the windshield of the vehicle to indicate a location of the road hazard (Larsson, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, further teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the graphical alert is configured to convey one or more of:
a distance to the road hazard;
a rate of approach of the road hazard;
a severity of the road hazard; and
a type of the road hazard (Larsson, paragraph [0005] and [0006]).
Regarding claims 11-14 and 16-20, the limitations of the claims are rejected for similar corresponding rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-10 above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rider et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0179066) in view of Larsson et al. (US PGPUB 2025/0058770) and Tso et al. (2024/0264437), and further in view of Chang et al. (US PGPub 2025/0362490).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Rider, Larsson in view of Tso fails to teach the method of Claim 3, wherein projecting the augmented reality image overlay and the virtual image on a windshield of the vehicle simultaneously comprises:
determining, based on the driver features, a location of the windshield that corresponds to a line of sight of the driver; and
projecting the augmented reality image overlay on the location of the windshield that corresponds to the line of sight of the driver.
However, Chang et al. teaches a programmable freeform optics for head-up display where information projected onto the head-up display patch is presented near or along a normal forward facing line of sight of the operator (paragraph [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to incorporate the feature include a line of sign fo the driver as taught by Chang et al. into the method disclosed by Rider in view of Larsson in order to allow the driver easy and non-distracted viewing of the displayed information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Misawa (US PGPub 2022/0091415) teaches a head-up display apparatus wherein driver's viewpoint detector is configured to detect a viewpoint of the driver; and a movement mechanism is configured to move a position of the virtual image based on information of the viewpoint of the driver detected by the driver's viewpoint detector. The driver's viewpoint detector detects the viewpoint of the driver by irradiating the face of the driver with the interior light or light of the light source of the image display unit as illumination light at night.
Yu et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0089972) teaches an automobile head up display system and an obstacle prompt method thereof are provided. The method includes: acquiring a road condition video image, identifying obstacles from the acquired image after performing an enhancement processing on the acquired image; projecting and displaying a prompt information at corresponding positions of a front windshield of the automobile according to positions of the identified obstacles in the road condition video image.
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 BENNY QUOC TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7490. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
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.
/BENNY Q TIEU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2682
