CTFR 18/878,169 CTFR 82232 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in response to the amendment filed by Applicant on 02/20/2026. This action is made FINAL. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Comparison Between Applicant’s Specification and The Prior Art The Applicant argues that “the cited portions of Messer teach that in connection with improving a color uniformity of a display, a low-pass filter may be applied to correction matrices to reduce a sensitivity to eye position when adjusting luminance responses of the display. While the cited portions of Messer do teach the use of low-pass filter in connection with eye position and display luminance , there is no teaching or suggestion of actions in connection with tracking a device .” However, Applicant specifically states (see paragraph 30) of the instant application that “the device is equipped with the above control unit. The device can in particular also comprise at least one sensor and/or one eye tracking unit, which is/are designed and configured for acquiring a spatial area (eyebox) predetermined for the eyes of the user and for outputting a corresponding sensor and/or eye tracking signal for ascertaining a current change of the eye position of the user. In paragraph 98 of Messer et al (previously cited), Messer states that “images may be acquired at multiple eye-positions using a camera with an entrance pupil diameter of roughly 4 mm, and the average may be used to generate an effective eye box image. The eye box image can be used to generate a correction matrix that will be less sensitive to eye position than an image taken at a particular eye-position.” The teaching of Messer et al matches the definition of Applicant’s specification, and would therefore read on the limitations argued by the Applicant. The Applicant does not provide any further reasons pertaining to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching or suggestion of actions in connection with tracking a device. The Specific Limitation of “As a Function of Time” Further, the Applicant argues that “There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited portion of Messer of: subjecting the change of the eye position ascertained as a function of time to a low-pass filter before adjusting the device, wherein the low-pass filter is configured to let change components having frequencies below a predetermined limiting frequency pass approximately unattenuated and to suppress change components having higher frequencies. Similarly, there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited portion of Messer of omitting the low-pass filter in response to at least one of the predetermined exceptional circumstances being met.” However, the only mention of the language “as a function of time” was in previously pending claims 15 and 25. As would be described below, the specification does have some indication of time intervals, time derivatives, etc. The language in the specification is narrower than the broader language argued by the Applicant. Specifically, see for example paragraph 13 of the instant Application, where the Applicant mentions “ascertaining a current time derivative of the eye position of the user and checking whether this derivative exceeds a predetermined first threshold value.” If this limitation is what Applicant means by the “as a function of time”, then it is recommended that the language be incorporated in the claims. Otherwise, the plain meaning of “as a function of time” can mean multiple possible ways of ascertaining values. In the context of Messer et al, Messer shows in paragraph 98 that images may be acquired at multiple eye-positions using a camera, which is necessarily taking images of an eye as a function of time because the camera is tracking the eye . 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-15, 17-18, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edgren et al (Publication number: US 2021/0174767) in view of Messer et al (Publication number: US 2021/0407365) . Consider Claim 11, Edgren et al shows a method for robust adaptation of a device, which is automatically trackable to a varying eye position of a user, for use in a vehicle (see figures 10 and 11), the method comprising: (a) Ascertaining a current change of an eye position of the user (see figure 11; paragraph 58); (At 1104, a change in the driver's eye or head position is determined that would result in an adjustment of position of the HUD image). (b) Returning to ascertaining the current change of the eye position in response to at least one of predetermined ignoring criteria being met and none of predetermined exceptional circumstances being met, wherein the predetermined ignoring criteria classify the currently ascertained change as irrelevant, and wherein the predetermined exceptional circumstances classify tracking as required (paragraphs 58-60; figure 11); (At 1106, it is determined if the adjustment of position of the HUD image would result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box. For example, if the driver's eyes or head move to the left as the driver is beginning a left turn, it can be determined that the adjusted position of the HUD image in response to the driver's eye or head position would in result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box. If it is determined that the driver's change in eye or head position would not result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box 1108, the size and configuration of the HUD image at 1102 is unchanged. If it is determined that the driver's change in eye or head position would in result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box 1110, at 1112, the size or configuration of the HUD image is adjusted in response to the determined change in the driver's eye or head position). (c) Tracking the device in accordance with the currently ascertained change of the eye position in response to none of the predetermined ignoring criteria being met or at least one of the predetermined exceptional circumstances being met (paragraphs 58-60; figure 11); (At 1106, it is determined if the adjustment of position of the HUD image would result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box. For example, if the driver's eyes or head move to the left as the driver is beginning a left turn, it can be determined that the adjusted position of the HUD image in response to the driver's eye or head position would in result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box. If it is determined that the driver's change in eye or head position would not result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box 1108, the size and configuration of the HUD image at 1102 is unchanged. If it is determined that the driver's change in eye or head position would in result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box 1110, at 1112, the size or configuration of the HUD image is adjusted in response to the determined change in the driver's eye or head position). However, Edgren et al does not specifically show subjecting the change of the eye position ascertained as a function of time to a low-pass filter before adjusting the device, wherein the low-pass filter is configured to let having frequencies below a predetermined limiting frequency pass approximately unattenuated and to suppress change components having higher frequencies; omitting the low-pass filter in response to at least one of the predetermined exceptional circumstances being met; and adjusting the device. In related art, Messer et al shows subjecting the change of the eye position ascertained as a function of time to a low-pass filter before adjusting the device, wherein the low-pass filter is configured to let having frequencies below a predetermined limiting frequency pass approximately unattenuated and to suppress change components having higher frequencies; omitting the low-pass filter in response to at least one of the predetermined exceptional circumstances being met; and adjusting the device (see paragraphs 97-100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Messer et al into the teaching of Edgren et al in order to reduce sensitivity to eye position (see paragraph 98). Consider Claim 18, Edgren et al shows a controller comprising: at least one computing device (see figure 8), configured to: (a) Ascertain a current change of an eye position of a user of a vehicle (see figure 11; paragraph 58); (At 1104, a change in the driver's eye or head position is determined that would result in an adjustment of position of the HUD image). (b) Return to ascertaining the current change of the eye position in response to at least one of predetermined ignoring criteria being met and none of predetermined exceptional circumstances being met, wherein the predetermined ignoring criteria classify the currently ascertained change as irrelevant, and wherein the predetermined exceptional circumstances classify tracking as required (paragraphs 58-60; figure 11); (At 1106, it is determined if the adjustment of position of the HUD image would result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box. For example, if the driver's eyes or head move to the left as the driver is beginning a left turn, it can be determined that the adjusted position of the HUD image in response to the driver's eye or head position would in result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box. If it is determined that the driver's change in eye or head position would not result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box 1108, the size and configuration of the HUD image at 1102 is unchanged. If it is determined that the driver's change in eye or head position would in result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box 1110, at 1112, the size or configuration of the HUD image is adjusted in response to the determined change in the driver's eye or head position). (c) Track the device in accordance with the currently ascertained change of the eye position in response to none of the predetermined ignoring criteria being met or at least one of the predetermined exceptional circumstances being met (paragraphs 58-60; figure 11); (At 1106, it is determined if the adjustment of position of the HUD image would result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box. For example, if the driver's eyes or head move to the left as the driver is beginning a left turn, it can be determined that the adjusted position of the HUD image in response to the driver's eye or head position would in result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box. If it is determined that the driver's change in eye or head position would not result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box 1108, the size and configuration of the HUD image at 1102 is unchanged. If it is determined that the driver's change in eye or head position would in result in a portion of the HUD image positioned outside the eye box 1110, at 1112, the size or configuration of the HUD image is adjusted in response to the determined change in the driver's eye or head position). However, Edgren et al does not specifically show subjecting the change of the eye position ascertained as a function of time to a low-pass filter before adjusting the device, wherein the low-pass filter is configured to let having frequencies below a predetermined limiting frequency pass approximately unattenuated and to suppress change components having higher frequencies; omitting the low-pass filter in response to at least one of the predetermined exceptional circumstances being met; and adjusting the device. In related art, Messer et al shows subjecting the change of the eye position ascertained as a function of time to a low-pass filter before adjusting the device, wherein the low-pass filter is configured to let having frequencies below a predetermined limiting frequency pass approximately unattenuated and to suppress change components having higher frequencies; omitting the low-pass filter in response to at least one of the predetermined exceptional circumstances being met; and adjusting the device (see paragraphs 97-100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Messer et al into the teaching of Edgren et al in order to reduce sensitivity to eye position (see paragraph 98). Consider Claims 12 and 22, Edgren et al shows determining whether the predetermined ignoring criteria is met comprises: ascertaining a current time derivative of the eye position of the user, and checking whether the current time derivative of the eye position of the user exceeds a predetermined first threshold value; and/or ascertaining a current time derivative of a head position and/or head orientation of the user, and checking whether the current time derivative of the head position and/or head orientation of the user exceeds a predetermined second threshold value; and/or ascertaining a viewing direction of the user, and checking whether the viewing direction of the user has departed from a predetermined field of view area of the device; and/or ascertaining a head position and/or head orientation of the user, and checking whether the head position and/or head orientation of the user has departed from a predetermined head position and/or head orientation area of the device (see figure 10; and paragraphs 54-56); (At 1004 position of the driver's eyes or head relative to position of the eye box is determined (via the detection module 110). At 1006, size or configuration of the image within the eye box is adjusted in response to the determined driver's eye or head position (e.g., via the adjustment module 112). Consider Claims 13 and 23, Edgren et al shows ascertaining the head position and/or head orientation of the user and checking whether the head position and/or head orientation of the user has departed from the predetermined head position and/or head orientation area of the device is used as a fallback method in response to ascertaining the viewing direction of the user failing or becoming impossible (see figure 10; and paragraphs 54-56); (At 1004 position of the driver's eyes or head relative to position of the eye box is determined (via the detection module 110). At 1006, size or configuration of the image within the eye box is adjusted in response to the determined driver's eye or head position (e.g., via the adjustment module 112). Consider Claims 14 and 24, Edgren et al shows that the predetermined exceptional circumstances comprise detecting one or more of the following changes: a change of a seat setting of an adjustable user seat; a user change; a predetermined status change of the device that results in a change of the eye position; and/or one or more predetermined changes of a user assistance level or activation of user assistance functions of the device that results in a change of the eye position (see figure 11; paragraph 58); (At 1104, a change in the driver's eye or head position is determined that would result in an adjustment of position of the HUD image). Consider Claim 17, Edgren et al shows ascertaining the current change of the eye position of the user is at least partially implemented by a camera system having one or more cameras, and wherein at least one of the one or more cameras is installed in or on a movable interior mirror of the vehicle in such a way that the one or more cameras is movable together with the interior mirror (see paragraphs 21-25) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edgren et al (Publication number: US 2021/0174767) in view of Messer in view of Kumon (Publication number: US 2011/0227717) . Consider Claim 16, Edgren et al , in view of Messer do not specifically show a field-of-view display device configured to insert display contents into a field of view of the user via reflection on a partially transparent reflection pane arranged in the field of view, wherein an eye box intended for the eyes of the user is trackable to a varying eye position of the user; an automatically adjustable headrest of a user seat; and/or an automatically adjustable interior and/or exterior mirror of the vehicle, wherein the user is a driver of the vehicle. In related art, Kumon shows a field-of-view display device configured to insert display contents into a field of view of the user via reflection on a partially transparent reflection pane arranged in the field of view, wherein an eye box intended for the eyes of the user is trackable to a varying eye position of the user; an automatically adjustable headrest of a user seat; and/or an automatically adjustable interior and/or exterior mirror of the vehicle, wherein the user is a driver of the vehicle (see figures 1 and 2; paragraphs 26-31); (The seat position sensor 5 detects the position of the driver's seat. The seat position sensor 5 generates a seat position signal that indicates the detected seat position, and outputs the detected seat position to the display position adjustment ECU 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Kumon into the teaching of Edgren et al , and Messer in order to adjust a mirror based on detected eye positions (see Kumon; paragraphs 5 and 6). Consider Claim 19, Edgren et al , in view of Messer do not specifically show that the device configured to be tracked to a varying eye position of the user of the vehicle; and one or more cameras of a camera system, which is usable to ascertain the current change of the eye position of the user, and wherein the device is designed as a field-of-view display device having an automatically trackable eyebox, or as an automatically adjustable headrest of a user seat, or as an automatically adjustable interior and/or exterior mirror of the vehicle. In related art, Kumon shows that the device configured to be tracked to a varying eye position of the user of the vehicle; and one or more cameras of a camera system, which is usable to ascertain the current change of the eye position of the user, and wherein the device is designed as a field-of-view display device having an automatically trackable eyebox, or as an automatically adjustable headrest of a user seat, or as an automatically adjustable interior and/or exterior mirror of the vehicle (see figures 1 and 2; paragraphs 26-31); (The seat position sensor 5 detects the position of the driver's seat. The seat position sensor 5 generates a seat position signal that indicates the detected seat position, and outputs the detected seat position to the display position adjustment ECU 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Kumon into the teaching of Edgren et al , and Messer in order to adjust a mirror based on detected eye positions (see Kumon; paragraphs 5 and 6). Consider Claims 20 and 21, Kumon shows that the one or more cameras is installed in or on a movable interior mirror of the vehicle in such a way that the one or more cameras is movable together with the interior mirror, wherein the device is a field-of-view display device, wherein a reflection pane of the field-of-view device is a section of a windshield of the motor vehicle or as a combiner pane arranged in the vehicle interior in front of the windshield (see figures 1 and 2; paragraphs 26-31); (The seat position sensor 5 detects the position of the driver's seat. The seat position sensor 5 generates a seat position signal that indicates the detected seat position, and outputs the detected seat position to the display position adjustment ECU 1). Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 MICHAEL A FARAGALLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00. 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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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. /MICHAEL A FARAGALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624 05/27/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 2 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 3 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 4 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 5 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 6 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 7 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 8 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 9 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 10 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 11 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 12 Art Unit: 2624 Application/Control Number: 18/878,169 Page 13 Art Unit: 2624
Prosecution Insights