DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 12/29/2025. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The previously pending objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed 12/29/2025 was disapproved for the following reasons:
1. The instant application number is incorrect.
2. The terminal disclaimer identifies a party who is not the applicant (only for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012; See FP 14.26.10):
For cases filed on/after 9/16/2012, 37 CFR 1.321 specifies that the applicant can disclaim, and the terminal disclaimer must specify the extent of the applicant's ownership.
To remedy this:
A request under 37 CFR 1.46(c) to change the applicant needs to be filed, which is (1) a request, signed by a 1.33(b) party, (2) a corrected ADS (37 CFR 1.76(c)) that identifies the "new" applicant in the applicant information, and is underlined since it is new, and (3) a 3.73(c) statement showing chain of title to the new applicant. Along with the § 1.46(c) request we need a POA that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, unless they file a TD that is signed by the applicant.
Note: The applicant cited on the TD must be cited exactly as it is cited on the ADS and or filing receipt and also in its entirety. If more space for applicant section is required, please use smaller fonts or submit an attachment page to the TD.
Please make corrections as suggested above and also resubmit the TD. (No new fee required).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12100247 (‘247).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 of the current application correspond to independent claims 1, 11, and 21 of ’247, respectively. Independent claims 21, 28 and 35 of the current application are merely broader versions of the corresponding independent claims in ‘247, therefore the claims under examination are anticipated by the reference claims.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite elements found in the dependent claims of ‘247.
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 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman et al (US 20190189007 A1), in view of Beckman (US 20160357014 A1).
As per claim 1, Herman et al disclose a system for windshield safety (i.e., The triggering sensors 102 are sensors that monitor the area around the vehicle 100 to detect events that are indicative to potential damage to the vehicle 100, ¶ 0015), comprising:
a physical sensor that detects possible damage to a windshield of a vehicle (i.e., The triggering sensors 102 are used to (a) detect suspicious activity by tracking individuals in the vicinity of the vehicle 100, (b) detect physical indicia of impacts, and/or (c) auditory indicia of impacts and other damage, ¶ 0015), and
a display corrector in the vehicle to alter the display of information in response to a possible damage detection by the sensor (i.e., The infotainment head unit 108 facilitates the user entering in preferences (e.g., how often to trigger the damage detection when the vehicle is stationary, etc.) and information (e.g., the contact information for insurance and/or a repair shop, etc.). The infotainment head unit 108 also facilitates the user viewing the reconstructed images and the vehicle 100 and/or progress of reconstructing the image of the vehicle 100., ¶ 0019).
Herman et al does not disclose a display corrector in the vehicle to alter a physical location of a display of information in the vehicle.
Beckman discloses FIG. 18. is a perspective view of the same specialized window display as set forth in reference to FIG. 17, above, carrying out “shifted reality” aspects of the present invention. During autonomous, or semi-autonomous driving procedures, as discussed in greater detail below, a user may be presented with informational menus, game environments, or other highly augmented or shifted reality displays, as set forth in this application. In these aspects, the appearance of the user's environments may be highly modified, while still maintaining environmental light, as discussed above. For example, in the scene depicted in the figure, the user and/or the control system has called up an informational operations menu 1841. In order for the user to see the information on this screen menu more clearly, and without losing total view of the outside environment, the apparent location of various objects has been shifted for a user at the observation focal point corresponding with the perspective of the figure. For example, both point of interest (now 1811) and the sun (1809) have been shifted outward, to the periphery of menu 1841, and other environmental aspects of the scene have been warped out of the way, and downward (1814) (¶ 0081).
Herman et al and Beckman are concerned with effective windshield viewing management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a display corrector in the vehicle to alter a physical location of a display of information in the vehicle in Herman et al, as seen in Beckman, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, Herman et al disclose a Heads-Up Display (HUD) damage detector to compare a display of a HUD image on the windshield from after a possible damage detection by the sensor to an intended display of the HUD image (i.e., The output devices may include instrument cluster outputs (e.g., dials, lighting devices), actuators, a heads-up display, a center console display (e.g., a liquid crystal display (“LCD”), an organic light emitting diode (“OLED”) display, a flat panel display, a solid state display, etc.), ¶ 0019).
As per claim 3, Herman et al disclose the sensor is at least one of a camera, a radar system, an optical edge-light sensor, and an accelerometer (i.e., In some examples, the triggering sensors 102 include cameras, range detection sensors (e.g., radar, LiDAR, ultrasonic, infrared, etc.), accelerometers, axial sensors (e.g., yaw and pitch sensors, etc.), microphones, scratch detection sensors, ¶ 0015).
As per claim 6, Herman et al disclose the driver information system provides a notification to a user of the possible damage detected by the sensor (i.e., For example, the vehicle may notify authorities, notify an insurance company, notify the owner of the vehicle, inform a mobile repair team, and/or autonomously navigate to a maintenance facility, etc., ¶ 0012).
As per claim 7, Herman et al disclose the notification is provided to the user by a message sent to a device other than the vehicle (i.e., For example, the vehicle may notify authorities, notify an insurance company, notify the owner of the vehicle, inform a mobile repair team, and/or autonomously navigate to a maintenance facility, etc., ¶ 0012).
Claims 8-10, 13 and 14 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-3, 6 and 7, respectively, since they are the method claims corresponding to the system claims.
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6 respectively, since they are the computer readable storage device claims corresponding to the system claims.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues Herman does not disclose to alter the physical location of a display of information in a vehicle. In fact, the Examiner acknowledges that "Herman et al does not disclose a display corrector in the vehicle to alter a physical location of a display of information in the vehicle." Office Action, p. 6. The Examiner asserts that Herman discloses "a display corrector in the vehicle to alter the display of information in response to a possible damage detection by the sensor." Office Action, p. 5. However, the cited portion of Herman merely describes an infotainment head unit 108 that "provides an interface between the vehicle 100 and a user." Herman, para. [0019]. The infotainment head unit 108 facilitates the user entering in preferences (e.g., how often to trigger the damage detection when the vehicle is stationary, etc.) and information (e.g., the contact information for insurance and/or a repair shop, etc.). Id. However, this cited portion of Herman does not describe altering the display of information in response to possible damage detection. Entering preferences for how often to trigger damage detection is very different from altering a display of information in response to possible damage detection. Moreover, the claims recite altering a physical location of a display of information, and not the information itself. Thus, Herman does not disclose “a display corrector in the vehicle to alter a physical location of a display of information in the vehicle in response to a possible damage detection by the physical sensor,” as generally recited by claims 1, 8, and 15.
The deficiencies of Herman are not remedied by Beckman, either alone or in any sort of hypothetical combination with Beckman. Beckman is generally directed towards "new augmented reality and other mediated reality techniques." Beckman, para. [0002]. The Examiner cites a portion of Beckman for allegedly disclosing "the apparent location of various objects has been shifted for a user at the observation focal point corresponding with the perspective of the figure." Office Action, p. 6. The cited portion of Beckman describes "shifted reality" aspects, in which a user may be presented with informational menus, game environments, or other highly augmented or shifted reality displays. Beckman, para. [0081]. However, in Beckman, the physical location of the data being displayed is physically displayed within the same specialized windows display 1701 (shown in FIG. 17, with FIG. 18 described as "a perspective view of the same specialized window display as set forth in reference to FIG. 17"). Moreover, Beckman does not describe changing any location of a physical location of a display in response to any potential detected damage to a windshield. In particular, the only "damage" Beckman describes is in connection with a "luminance limit" that "prevents any possible retinal damage, or any possible long-term retinal damage, for the user, or an average or healthy individual, which can vary based on age and other factors." Beckman, para. [0035]. Beckman is silent as to detecting any potential damage to a windshield, much less altering a physical location of a display of information in response to such potential damage to a windshield. Thus, Beckman also does not disclose "a display corrector in the vehicle to alter a physical location of a display of information in the vehicle in response to a possible damage detection by the physical sensor," as generally recited by claims 1, 8, and 15. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As described in the updated rejection, Herman et al disclose the infotainment head unit 108 facilitates the user entering in preferences (e.g., how often to trigger the damage detection when the vehicle is stationary, etc.) and information (e.g., the contact information for insurance and/or a repair shop, etc.). The infotainment head unit 108 also facilitates the user viewing the reconstructed images and the vehicle 100 and/or progress of reconstructing the image of the vehicle 100, ¶ 0019. As such, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Herman et al indeed disclose altering the display of information in response to possible damage detection.
Additionally, as described in the rejection, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Beckman indeed discloses the limitation not disclosed by Herman et al, namely a display corrector in the vehicle to alter a physical location of a display of information in the vehicle.
Specifically, Beckman discloses FIG. 18. is a perspective view of the same specialized window display as set forth in reference to FIG. 17, above, carrying out “shifted reality” aspects of the present invention. During autonomous, or semi-autonomous driving procedures, as discussed in greater detail below, a user may be presented with informational menus, game environments, or other highly augmented or shifted reality displays, as set forth in this application. In these aspects, the appearance of the user's environments may be highly modified, while still maintaining environmental light, as discussed above. For example, in the scene depicted in the figure, the user and/or the control system has called up an informational operations menu 1841. In order for the user to see the information on this screen menu more clearly, and without losing total view of the outside environment, the apparent location of various objects has been shifted for a user at the observation focal point corresponding with the perspective of the figure. For example, both point of interest (now 1811) and the sun (1809) have been shifted outward, to the periphery of menu 1841, and other environmental aspects of the scene have been warped out of the way, and downward (1814) (¶ 0081).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights