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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/01/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) in view of Lee et al (Publication number: US 2022/0187907).
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).
However, Edgren et al in view of Messer et al do not specifically show ascertaining a current change of an eye position of the user during at least one of predetermined time intervals or in real time, and subjecting the ascertained time-dependent change of the eye position during the at least one of predetermined time intervals or in real time.
In related art, Lee et al shows ascertaining a current change of an eye position of the user during at least one of predetermined time intervals or in real time, and subjecting the ascertained time-dependent change of the eye position during the at least one of predetermined time intervals or in real time (see paragraphs 34-36); (The attention value for each entity “leaks,” or decays, over time. As such, when a user gazes towards a location, the time-dependent attention value for the location increases with time. Likewise, when the user looks away from the location, the time-dependent attention value decreases. The time-dependent attention value for a location may asymptotically increase to a maximum value based on the rate of the leak in some examples. In various examples, the leaky integrator may comprise a first-order low-pass filter, a first-order differential equation, a higher-order differential equation, or other suitable mathematical function).
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 time-dependent attention value into the teachings of Edgren and Messer in order to display images based on user’s intent (see Lee et al; paragraphs 2 and 3).
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).
However, Edgren et al in view of Messer et al do not specifically show ascertaining a current change of an eye position of the user during at least one of predetermined time intervals or in real time, and subjecting the ascertained time-dependent change of the eye position during the at least one of predetermined time intervals or in real time.
In related art, Lee et al shows ascertaining a current change of an eye position of the user during at least one of predetermined time intervals or in real time, and subjecting the ascertained time-dependent change of the eye position during the at least one of predetermined time intervals or in real time (see paragraphs 34-36); (The attention value for each entity “leaks,” or decays, over time. As such, when a user gazes towards a location, the time-dependent attention value for the location increases with time. Likewise, when the user looks away from the location, the time-dependent attention value decreases. The time-dependent attention value for a location may asymptotically increase to a maximum value based on the rate of the leak in some examples. In various examples, the leaky integrator may comprise a first-order low-pass filter, a first-order differential equation, a higher-order differential equation, or other suitable mathematical function).
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 time-dependent attention value into the teachings of Edgren and Messer in order to display images based on user’s intent (see Lee et al; paragraphs 2 and 3).
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).
Claims 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 and Lee in view of Kumon (Publication number: US 2011/0227717).
Consider Claim 16, Edgren et al, in view of Messer and Lee 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 and Lee 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 and Lee 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 and Lee 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
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 09/05/2026
Prosecution Insights