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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (US 2021/0306618) in view of Tanahashi (JP 2016130771; disclosed in IDS; applicant's translation relied upon), and further in view of Fujimoto (JP 3412285-B2; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1:
Sugiyama discloses:
Claim 1
Sugiyama
1. (Currently Amended) A vehicle display device comprising:
Abstract: "vehicle display device"
an image display unit that emits display light for an image;
Fig. 1; paragraph 38: "display 30"
an optical system that projects the display light emitted from the image display unit toward a reflecting surface in front of a driver; and
Fig. 1; paragraph 38: "projects a display image…onto the windshield"
a control unit that controls the image display unit, wherein
Fig. 2: controller 12
the image includes a both-eye region that is a region visually recognized by both eyes of the driver and a one-eye region that is a region visually recognized by only one eye of the driver, and
Paragraph 40: "binocular viewing region 21, a right monocular viewing region 22a, and a left monocular viewing region 23a"
when displaying a direction design for notifying a direction, the control unit displays the direction design in only in the one-eye region in response to detecting an approaching object and extends the direction design from within the one eye region and into the both eye region if a distance to the approaching object is equal to or smaller than a prescribed distance.
Not disclosed by Sugiyama
Sugiyama does not disclose:
"when displaying a direction design for notifying a direction, the control unit displays the direction design in only in the one-eye region in response to detecting an approaching object and extends the direction design from within the one eye region and into the both eye region if a distance to the approaching object is equal to or smaller than a prescribed distance."
There are several parts to this. First, Sugiyama does not show a design extending from the one eye region into the both eye region. In Sugiyama direction designs are shown just in the one-eye region as per, e.g., Fig. 10.
Tanahashi discloses:
extending the direction design across the both-eye region from the one-eye region (Fig. 8; paragraph 48: "straddle the boundary line")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Sugiyama the elements taught by Tanahashi.
The rationale is as follows:
Sugiyama and Tanahashi are directed to the same field of art.
Tanahashi shows how designs can be displayed across two regions, increasing the different ways they can be displayed. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Sugiyama in view of Tanahashi still does not disclose the entirety of:
"when displaying a direction design for notifying a direction, the control unit displays the direction design in only in the one-eye region in response to detecting an approaching object and extends the direction design from within the one eye region and into the both eye region if a distance to the approaching object is equal to or smaller than a prescribed distance."
Fujimoto discloses:
when displaying a direction design for notifying a direction, the control unit displays the direction design in only in the periphery in response to detecting an approaching object and extends the direction design across the center from the periphery if a distance to the approaching object is equal to or smaller than a prescribed distance (paragraph 47, where as shown in Fig. 13, the direction design is first shown on the periphery in position D', and then as it gets closer it moves it to D and then to C, so it gets more and more centered -- the object here is the point where the driving direction is needed, e.g., a street or corner. Note here it is “gradually moved” as per paragraph 59, so it is moved across this area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Sugiyama in view of Tanahashi when displaying a direction design for notifying a direction, the control unit displays the direction design in only in the one-eye region in response to detecting an approaching object and extends the direction design from within the one eye region and into the both eye region if a distance to the approaching object is equal to or smaller than a prescribed distance, as suggested by Fujimoto.
The rationale is as follows:
Sugiyama, Tanahashi, and Fujimoto are directed to the same field of art.
This is just applying the teaching of Fujimoto (gradually moving the design from the edge to the center) to the display of Sugiyama, which has a one eye region on the edge and a both eye region in the center. Tanahashi shows that it is possible to span both of these regions.
Fujimoto discloses that beginning with the peripheral view can prevent interfering with the driver's view (paragraph 43) and make the display recognized more naturally (paragraph 44). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Sugiyama, etc., discloses:
wherein when detecting the approaching object, the control unit displays the direction design notifying an approaching direction of the approaching object across the both-eye region from the one-eye region (it might depending on the distance as taught by Fujimoto).
Regarding claim 3:
Sugiyama, etc., discloses:
wherein when a distance to the approaching object is larger than a prescribed distance, the control unit displays the direction design only in the one-eye region, and when the distance to the approaching object is equal to or smaller than the prescribed distance, the control unit displays the direction design across the both-eye region from the one- eye region by changing a position or a size of the direction design (taught by Fujimoto as discussed above).
Regarding claim 4:
Sugiyama, etc., discloses:
wherein the direction design is a design that changes with time (the design changes as per Fujimoto Fig. 13 -- it will change "with time" in that it changes as the vehicle approaches the point).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Note that the wording (and order of references) in the rejection has been changed to better fit applicant’s amended language, but the art relied upon remains the same, and so applicant’s arguments are still applicable.
Applicant’s argument is that “the applied references to not disclose or suggest distinct eye regions so that a direction design can be visible in a one eye region only, in a both eye region only or across both a one eye region and a both eye region.”
But this is exactly what is suggested by the references.
Sugiyama discloses these regions – a one eye region, and a both eye region. Sugiyama shows that elements can be displayed in a one eye region (e.g., Fig. 5: 22a) or in a both eye region (Fig. 5: 21).
Tanahashi (e.g., Fig. 8) shows that elements can be displayed across both a one eye region and a both eye region.
Fujimoto shows that a design might be shown on one edge and then gradually moved toward the center based on the distance (e.g., paragraph 47, Fig. 13, where it is gradual as per paragraph 59).
If this moving design as taught by Fujimoto is applied to the display of Sugiyama, it will start in the one eye region, because that is the edge, and gradually moved to the both eye region, because that is the center. At some point if it moves gradually it will be in both regions at once, which Tanahashi shows is possible.
Therefore this does follow from the combination of references.
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 CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights