1Notice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on August 30, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2022-0109120 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,4,6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunii et al. (US 11,340,089) in view of Mayer, III et al. (US 6,568,816).
As per claim 1, Kunii discloses a lamp system (col 3, ll. 20-50; Fig. 1: a multi-lamp system for projecting coordinated images from a moving object), comprising:
a plurality of left lamps installed on a left side of a moving object to output an allocated first image (col. 3, ll. 25-40: vehicle is a moving object; left lamps correspond to the claimed left side allocation wherein applying left side lamp allocation to the multi-lamp projection system is a predictable use of known techniques for distributing image segments across a moving object)
a plurality of right lamps installed on a right side of the moving object to output an allocated second image (Col. 3. ll. 25-40: right side projection lamps mounted on the vehicle projecting the complementary portion of the image wherein distributing images to right side lamps complements left lamp projection; predictable application); and
a control unit generating a first image and a second image, which are images for the left lamps and the right lamps, respectively, based on the original image information (col. 4. ll. 10-35: control unit allocates image segments to left and right lamps based on original image information which is standard design practice to partition original image for multiple projections).
The invention of Kunii does not explicitly teach overlapping image regions.
Mayer disclose overlapping areas between projected images for continuity (col. 5, ll. 40-55; col. 6, ll. 1-15). In addition, Mayer discloses a lamp/projection system mounted on a moving object including multiple projection units positioned on different sides of the object, and a controller configured to divide original image information into multiple images for respective projection units (col. 2, ll. 10-35; col. 4, ll. 5-40; Fig. 1-3). Mayer further teaches that adjacent projected images may partially overlap, and that the controller generates image data such that overlapping regions are produced between images output form different projection units in order to provide a continuous composite image (col. 5, ll. 15-45; col. 6, ll., 1-20).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to combined the vehicle mounted lamp system of Kunii with the overlapping projection teachings of Mayer, because vehicles commonly employ multiple spatially separated lamps to produce continuous imjages, and introducing overlap to improve visual continuity is a predictable use of known technique
Also, apply the multiple lamp overlapping projection system of Mayer to the vehicle mounted control teachings of Kunii because vehicles commonly use overlapping projections to create continuous composite image and is a predictable and obvious adaptation for image continuity.
Vice versa, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to apply the vehicle mounted control teachings of Kunii to the multiple lamp overlapping projection system of Mayer, because both references are directed to coordinated image output on moving objects, and combining such teachings represents a predictable use of known display control techniques to improve image presentation on vehicles.
It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In other words, the combined invention would show “wherein the control unit generates the first image and the second image to include an overlapping area where the first image and the second image overlap with each other”.
As per claim 4, the combined invention of Kunii in view of Mayer meets the limitation of claim and Kunii further discloses brightness adjustment of projected images and allocation to left and right lamps (col. 7, ll. 10-35). Mayer further shows adjusting brightness in overlap regions to reduce seam visibility (col. 6, ll. 1-30).
Apply gradual lowering of brightness across overlapping regions is a predictable extension to enhance visual continuity and reduce seam visibility, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teaching of Mayer regarding overlapping image regions. Determining the brightness profile based on the overlap dimension is a routine engineering consideration once the overlap region is defined.
Therefore, the combined invention would have been obviously further iscloses the control unit changes brightness of the overlapping area of the first image to be gradually lowered toward the second image, and changes brightness of the overlapping area of the second image to be gradually lowered toward the first image.
As per claim 6, the combined invention of Kunii in view of Mayer meets the limitation of claim and the combined invention would have been obviously further discloses the control unit increases brightness of one or more remaining portions except for the overlapping areas of the first image and the second image, respectively (Kunii: based system can adjust brightness; non-overlap compensation is standard practice in projection systems; compensating brightness levels across the projected image; col. 7, ll. 10-35. Mayer discloses brightness compensation outside overlap regions to maintain uniform luminance: col. 6, ll. 30-55. It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to adjust the brightness of non-overlapping portions to maintain uniform illumination when overlapping blending is performed, as this sis a routine and predictable adaptation of the base system).
As per claim 7, the combined invention of Kunii in view of Mayer meets the limitation of claim and Kunii further discloses the control unit doubles the brightness of the remaining portions except for the overlapping areas of the first image and the second image, respectively (Kunii: scaling brightness levels for image compensation for overlapping image effects: col. 7, ll. 10-35; inherently covers multiplying brightness. Mayer disclose scaling of brightness for compensation, inherently covers multiplying brightness by a factor: col. 6, ll. 30-55). Multiplying by a factor such as two is a predictable application of the scaling techniques disclosed.
As per claim 8, the combined invention of Kunii in view of Mayer meets the limitation of claim and Kunii further discloses wherein, when adjusting the brightness of the first image and the second image, the control unit sets an upper limit of the brightness of each pixel (col. 7, ll. 10-35: limiting brightness to prevent saturation and excessive luminance. In addition, Mayer shows limits brightness to prevent saturation: col. 6, ll. 55-65).
As per claim 9, the combined invention of Kunii in view of Mayer meets the limitation of claim and Kunii in view of Mayer would have been obviously further discloses wherein the left lamps output the first image in a left outer area and the overlapping area, and the right lamps output the second image in a right outer area and the overlapping area, and the control unit allocates the first image and the second image to the left and right lamps, respectively, so that individual images are output to at least one of the left outer area, the right outer area, and the overlapping area (Kunii: col. 4, ll. 10-35: allocation of image portions to left/right lamps; Mayer: produce continuous composite images on a moving object and further shows allocation of image portions to projection units, including outer and overlapping region: col. 5, ll. 15-45; Fig. 2-3).
As per claim 10, the combined invention of Kunii in view of Mayer meets the limitation of claim and the combination would have been obviously further discloses wherein the control unit allocates the first image and the second image to the left lamps and the right lamps, respectively, so that individual images are output only to the overlapping area (Kunii: selective output of image content depend on operating mode: col. 6, ll.. 1-20; Mayer shows selective output to specific regions depending on operation mode: col. 6, ll. 1-20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to allocate output only to the overlapping area as a routine adaptation of know image allocation techniques which is known design technique for focusing projection in a controlled region.
As per claim 11, the combined invention of Kunii in view of Mayer meets the limitation of claim and Kunii further discloses a sensor sensing a distance between a projection surface of the image output from the left lamps and the right lamps and the moving object, wherein the control unit adjusts an area of the overlapping area according to the distance between the projection surface sensed by the sensor and one direction of the moving object (col. 7, ll. 10-35; col. 9, ll. 1-25: sensors detect distance or environmental conditions and adjust image output which is predictable use of sensor feedback to dynamically adjust projection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to apply the sensor-based adjustment teaching of Kunii to the overlapping image control, because dynamically adjusting the overlap area based on distance improves display effectiveness and is a predictable used of known sensor feedback techniques.
Claim(s) 2,3,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunii et al. (US 11,340,089) in view of Mayer, III et al. (US 6,568,816), further in view of Bleha et al. (US 6,017,123).
As per claim 2, the combined invention of Kunii in view of Mayer meets the limitation of claim, and Kunii discloses allocation of images to left and right lamps (col. 3, ll. 25-40, col. 4, ll. 10-35) but does not explicitly mention wherein the control unit causes a transparency of the overlapping area of the first image to be gradually lowered toward the second image, and a transparency of the overlapping area of the second image to be gradually lowered toward the first image.
Kunii discloses overlap exists, but gradual transparency not disclosed.
Bleha teaches gradual transparency and intensity blending in overlapping projection regions to smoothly merge adjacent projected images and reduce visible seams (col. 4, ll. 20-45; Fig. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to apply the gradual blending of Bleha to the overlapping regions of the vehicle mounted projection of Kunii, because gradually blending overlapping images is a known and predictable method for improving visual continuity in multi-lamp projection system. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way. Additionally, selecting the transparency gradient across the overlapping area (e.g. linear or proportional decrease) is a predictable and routine engineering design choice once the overlap size is determined.
As per claim 3, recites controlling the size of the first and second images based on the original image size and the overlapping area dimension, including the mathematical express (x+y)/2.
Kunii teaches allocating portions of an original image to left and right projection units but does not explicitly teach sizing the images based on original image dimensions and overlap width (col. 4, ll. 10-35)
Bleha teaches selecting overlap widths in proportion to original image dimensions to achieve symmetric and balanced blending between overlapping image (col. 5, ll. 10-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement a simple, predictable sizing formula for the left and right images, such as (x+y)/2, in order to evenly allocate the original images plus overlap between the left and right projection units. Applying the overlap-dimension selection of Bleha to the vehicle-mounted projection system of Kunii makes the specific sizing arrangement (x+y)/2 a routine engineering choice to achieve uniform blending and symmetric image presentation. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
As per claim 5, the combined invention of Kunii in view of Mayer meets the limitation of claim, and Kunii teaches brightness adjustment (col. 7, ll. 10-35) but does not disclose a per-pixel minimum threshold.
Bleha teaches enforcing minimum brightness thresholds in overlapping regions to prevent loss of visual information (col. 4, ll. 45-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to incorporate the minimum brightness threshold teachings of Bleha into the multi-lamp projection system of Kunii, because maintaining minimum brightness during blending is a predictable method to persevere visibility and projection quality. Therefore, the combined invention would show wherein, when adjusting the brightness of the first image and the second image, the control unit sets a lower limit of the brightness of each pixel. It would be an implementation of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The specific value of the lower limit is a routine engineering parameter, determined based on illumination requirements and overlap size.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689