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 .
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (US 2019/0025580) in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2009/0010488) and further in view of Yuasa et al. (US 2021/0020141)
Regarding claim 1:
Nagano discloses:
A vehicle display device (abstract) comprising:
an image display unit that projects a display image on a projection target member of a vehicle and causes a driver of the vehicle to visually recognize a virtual image corresponding to the display image projected on the projection target member (paragraph 66);
an illuminance detection unit that detects illuminance around the vehicle (Paragraph 75: “illuminance sensor 105”);
an adjustment unit that adjusts brightness of the virtual image on a basis of the illuminance detected by the illuminance detection unit (paragraph 88).
Nagano does not disclose:
“an age acquisition unit that acquires an age of the driver;”
that the adjustment unit:
adjusts brightness of the virtual image on a basis of "the age squired by the age acquisition unit:"
"makes a response of brightness adjustment of the virtual image to the change in the detected illuminance relatively fast when the age of the driver acquired by the age acquisition unit is relatively high, and
"makes a response of the brightness adjustment of the virtual image to the change in the detected illuminance relatively slow when the age of the driver is relatively low."
Matsuoka discloses:
an age acquisition unit that acquires an age of the driver (Paragraph 39: "age estimation device 112"); and
the adjustment unit adjusts brightness of the virtual image on a basis of the age squired by the age acquisition unit: (Paragraph 98: "in accordance with the driver's age, automatically adjust a brightness")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Nagano the elements taught by Matsuoka.
The rationale is as follows:
Nagano and Matsuoka are directed to the same field of art.
Matsuoka discloses that accounting for age can reduce accidents (paragraph 29). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Nagano in view of Matsuoka still does not discuss whether the adjustment is slow or fast.
Yuasa discloses:
An adjustment unit:
makes a response of brightness adjustment of the virtual image to the change in the detected illuminance relatively fast when the age of the driver acquired by the age acquisition unit is relatively high (paragraphs 219-220 -- if the dark adaptation speed is lower for an older adult, the adjustment must be faster in order to appropriately adjusts the curves of, e.g., Figs. 8-10)
makes a response of the brightness adjustment of the virtual image to the change in the detected illuminance relatively slow when the age of the driver is relatively low (paragraphs 219-220).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Nagano in view of Matsuoka the elements taught by Yuasa.
The rationale is as follows:
Nagano, Matsuoka, and Yuasa are directed to the same field of art.
Yuasa discussed the difference in dark adaptation rate for age. Given that Matsuoka already teaches adjusting the brightness based on age, further adjusting the speed of the change as taught by Yuasa is just a further refinement of this technique. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in t
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being 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.
A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter was discussed in the Office Action mailed 01 October 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant cancelled claim 3 so the rejection of the claim is moot.
Next applicant argues (really starting page 7) with the teaching of Yuasa as applied to Nagano in view of Matsuoka.
The first argument (page 7) is that Yuasa is directed to a head mounted display and not light projected on a windshield – the second would typically be called a heads up display. Head mounted displays and heads up displays are very similar technology and are certainly related. It should be pointed out that both Nagano and Yuasa are classed in some of the same CPC categories, so they are considered related art, and it seems quite likely one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware of teachings from both technologies.
The second argument (starting bottom of page 7) is that Yuasa does not teach adjustment is fast when the age is high, and slow when it is low. But this follows from Yuasa.
The key teaching of Yuasa (paragraph 219) is that the dark adaptation speed falls as the adult gets older. The claim language follows from this teaching.
So if the illuminance changes outside the vehicle, an older user will have more trouble adapting. It will take longer.
But Matsuoka teaches that the brightness should be adjusted “in such a way that the driver of each age group can easily see the display.”
It therefore follows that the adjustment should be faster to compensate for this. The intent of the adjustment of Nagano in view of Matsuoka is to change the display to account for the outside illuminance. If the user is older it will take them longer to adjust to this change in illuminance and therefore changing the display brightness faster will allow them to see it sooner. A younger user, on the other hand, does not need this to be as quick.
This really isn’t all that complicated. Nagano in view of Matsuoka already teaches detecting the age of the user and adjusting the brightness appropriately for the age. The only thing missing is that the speed might need to be adjusted because of the age, but this follows from Yuasa. Is it really “hindsight reasoning” to think that if the driver adapts slower the display should adjust more quickly to compensate?
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 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