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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 October 2025 has been entered.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama (US 2021/0302727) in view of Edgren et al. (US 2021/0174767) and further in view of Tachiiri et al. (US 2022/0270527)
Claim 1
Sugiyama
1. (Currently Amended) A vehicle display device comprising:
Abstract
an image display unit that emits display light for an image;
Fig. 1; paragraph 26
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 26
a control unit that controls the image display unit,
Fig. 2: 12
wherein 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,
Fig. 3; paragraphs 38-40
the control unit sets a non-display region at a boundary portion between the both-eye region and the one-eye region and controls such that at least no static image is displayed in the non-display region, and
Follows from Fig. 5 and paragraphs 41-42. The boundary itself is not explicitly discussed, but as shown in the figure there is static information in the one-eye regions that as per paragraph 42 takes up 2/3s of the region. Therefore there is non-display space. There is a separate graphic Sa in the both-eye region, but there is a space between these elements based on that 2/3rds disclosure.
the control unit sets a width of the non-display area based on an average amplitude of movement of a head of the driver in a left-right direction.
Not disclosed by Sugiyama
Therefore Sugiyama does not disclose:
"the control unit sets a width of the non-display area based on an average amplitude of movement of a head of the driver in a left-right direction."
But note that Sugiyama does set the width based on the position, i.e., on the movement of the head (e.g., paragraph 45: "the right moocular viewing region 22a, and the left monocular viewing region 23a are…reduced in size in the left-right direction" If the region is reduced in size and the icon is 2/3rds of the region the non-display space is also changed).
So really the only thing that Sugiyama doesn't disclose is that the width is set "on an average amplitude of movement of a head." It is this average that Sugiyama doesn't disclose.
Edren discloses:
the control unit sets a width of the non-display area based on a filtered amplitude of movement of a head of the driver in a left-right direction (paragraph 28).
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 Edren.
The rationale is as follows:
Sugiyama and Edren are directed to the same field of art.
Edren discloses this can prevent movements that are distracting or annoying to the driver. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Sugiyama in view of Edren does not explicitly disclose:
That this filtered amplitude is the "average" amplitude.1
Tachiiri discloses:
An averaging filter can be used in place of a low-pass filter and vice-versa (paragraph 80).
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 Edren the elements taught by Tachiiri.
The rationale is as follows:
Sugiyama, Edren, and Tachiiri are directed to the same field of art.
Tachiiri discloses that these two kinds of filter are used in the same environment, for the same purpose, and achieve the same result. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one for the other with predictable results.
Sugiyama in view of Edren and further in view of Tachiiri discloses:
the control unit sets a width of the non-display area based on an average amplitude of movement of a head of the driver in a left-right direction (Edren teaches filtering and Tachiiri teaches the filter can be based on an average).
Regarding claim 2:
Sugiyama, etc., discloses:
The vehicle display device according to claim 1, wherein
the control unit includes a first acquisition unit that acquires movement of the head of the driver in the left-right direction (Sugiyama paragraph 30 – “capture a movi9ng image of the face of the driver” -- where this is in the left-right direction as shown in, e.g., Fig. 7);
the control unit determines the average amplitude of movement of the head of the driver based on the movement of the head of the driver acquired by the first acquisition unit (follows from Edren paragraph 28 and Tachiiri paragraph 80 as discussed above), and
the control unit includes a first setting unit that sets the width of the non-display region in a horizontal direction based on the average amplitude of movement of the head of the driver (Sugiyama, e.g., paragraph 45-46, Fig. 7, sets the width based on the position so in the combination it would be based on this average position).
Regarding claim 3:
Sugiyama, etc., discloses:
wherein the control unit includes:
a second acquisition unit that acquires a viewpoint position of the driver (Sugiyama paragraph 33); and
a second setting unit that sets a position of the non-display region based on the viewpoint position of the driver acquired by the second acquisition unit (Sugiyama Figs. 7-8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument (page 5) is that Sugiyama does not set a width based on an average amplitude of the head movement. This is true – Sugiyama sets a width based on head movement, but does not discuss taking the average. However, taking an average or otherwise filtering movement of this sort is well known in the art. Edren and Tachiiri are now relied upon to teach this. Therefore this argument is not persuasive due to the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s next argument (still page 5) is essentially that Sugiyama never explicitly discusses changing the width of the non-display area. While true, it is not necessary for Sugiyama to explicitly discuss it as long as Sugiyama’s device does it.
Sugiyama discusses changing the widths of the one-eye and both-eye regions (e.g., paragraph 45). Sugiyama also discloses that the icons in the one-eye regions take up 2/3rds of these regions (paragraphs 41-42). If they take up 2/3rds of the region, and are centered as shown in the figures, there is a space of 1/6th of the region on either side. If the size of the region is changed the size of this 1/6th changes. Therefore Sugiyama does this even though it is not explicitly discussed.
Applicant’s next arguments (starting page 6) are directed against Tanahashi or the combination of Sugiyama and Tanahashi. Tanahashi is no longer relied upon so these arguments are not relevant.
Conclusion
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
1 Note that to one of ordinary skill this probably would follow directly from Edren. It is very, very common for a low-pass filter to average values. It would be hard to find one that didn’t. But Tachiiri is relied upon to explicitly show it.