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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tracking means” in claims 1-26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (e,g. “tracking means is implemented as at least one tracking camera”).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11, 14, 17, 20-22, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 12025798 B1 to Dehkordi et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Dehkordi discloses a system implemented in a vehicle, the system comprising: tracking means (at least Fig. 3A-3I camera 305, Col 30 lines 29-30 “Gesture camera 305 can be, but not limited to, an eye tracking device”); a three-dimensional (3D) heads-up display (HUD) implemented using a transparent portion of a windshield of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 3A-3I windshield 26 with hovering image 28); a non-transparent display implemented using a non-transparent portion of the windshield or arranged on a dashboard of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 3A-3I display 1 with optical system 301), wherein a viewing zone of the non-transparent display lies beneath a viewing zone of the 3D HUD (See at least Fig. 3A-3I); and at least one processor configured to: determine a relative location of each eye of at least one user with respect to an image plane of the 3D HUD, and a relative location of a head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to an image plane of the non-transparent display, by utilising the tracking means (Col 29 lines 5-9 “lights and cameras record the viewer's position or eye gaze and input that into the computational compensation of the display system to optimize the focal plane or perspective of the virtual images”); generate a first light field image to be displayed via the 3D HUD for producing a part of a synthetic light field, based on the relative location of each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the 3D HUD (See at least Fig. 3A-3I Col 16 lines 48-60 “In some embodiments a gesture camera 305 is used to capture and recognize gestures made by the viewer. The information is then sent to the optical system to modify the image. In some embodiments, the camera can control other systems of the car, such as the electrical system, audio system, mechanical system, or sensor system. In some embodiments, the light is reflected from a windshield 26 after exiting the system through an exit aperture 402 to produce a virtual image that is perceived as being located inside the vehicle, rather than outside”); generate an image to be displayed via the non-transparent display for producing another part of the synthetic light field, based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display (Col 16 lines 37-40 “Light from a display 1 enters an optical system 301 in a housing 302. The optical system then prepares images and sends some of the light through an ambient light suppressor 48 forming a real image after exiting”); and display the first light field image and the image simultaneously via the 3D HUD and the non-transparent display, respectively, to produce the synthetic light field (Col 16 lines 33-60).
Regarding Claim 4. Dehkordi further discloses at least a top portion of the image and at least a portion of the first light field image that is to be displayed closest to the viewing zone of the non-transparent display are generated based on same virtual content (See at least Fig. 3C).
Regarding Claim 7. Dehkordi further discloses at least one real-world facing camera, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: detect when at least one virtual object is to be presented via the 3D HUD and the non-transparent display simultaneously; capture at least one real-world image of a region of a real-world environment that lies in front of the vehicle, by utilising the at least one real-world facing camera; and generate at least one synthetic image by utilising the at least one real-world image, based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display, wherein when generating the image, the at least one processor is configured to generate at least a top portion of the image by utilising the at least one synthetic image (Col 21 lines 63-67).
Regarding Claim 8. Dehkordi further discloses the at least one processor is configured to determine an amount of attenuation caused by the 3D HUD to a real-world light field passing therethrough, wherein when generating the image, the at least one processor is configured to generate intensity values of at least the top portion of the image, based on the amount of attenuation (Col 22 lines 3-15).
Regarding Claim 9. Dehkordi further discloses the at least one processor is configured to determine an average intensity of a real-world light field passing through the 3D HUD, wherein when generating the image, the at least one processor is configured to generate intensity values of at least a top portion of the image, based on the average intensity of the real-world light field (Col 22 lines 3-15, See also Col 27 lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 11. Dehkordi further discloses a set of cameras arranged on an external body of the vehicle, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: capture a set of real-world images of a region of a real-world environment that surrounds the vehicle, by utilising the set of cameras; and generate at least one of: (i) a view of said region of the real-world environment, (ii) a 360-degree view of the vehicle in said region of the real-world environment, by utilising the set of real-world images; wherein when generating the image, the at least one processor is configured to generate at least a background of the image by utilising the at least one of: (i) the view of said region of the real-world environment, (ii) the 360-degree view of the vehicle in said region of the real-world environment (Col 21 lines 63-67).
Regarding Claim 14. Dehkordi discloses a method implemented in a vehicle, wherein the method comprises: determining a relative location of each eye of at least one user with respect to an image plane of a three-dimensional (3D) heads-up display (HUD), and a relative location of a head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to an image plane of a non-transparent display (Col 29 lines 5-9 “lights and cameras record the viewer's position or eye gaze and input that into the computational compensation of the display system to optimize the focal plane or perspective of the virtual images”), by utilising tracking means (at least Fig. 3A-3I camera 305, Col 30 lines 29-30 “Gesture camera 305 can be, but not limited to, an eye tracking device”), wherein the 3D HUD is implemented using a transparent portion of a windshield of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 3A-3I windshield 26 with hovering image 28), and the non-transparent display is implemented using a non-transparent portion of the windshield or is arranged on a dashboard of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 3A-3I display 1 with optical system 301), wherein a viewing zone of the non-transparent display lies beneath a viewing zone of the 3D HUD (See at least Fig. 3A-3I); and generating a first light field image to be displayed via the 3D HUD for producing a part of a synthetic light field, based on the relative location of each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the 3D HUD (See at least Fig. 3A-3I Col 16 lines 48-60 “In some embodiments a gesture camera 305 is used to capture and recognize gestures made by the viewer. The information is then sent to the optical system to modify the image. In some embodiments, the camera can control other systems of the car, such as the electrical system, audio system, mechanical system, or sensor system. In some embodiments, the light is reflected from a windshield 26 after exiting the system through an exit aperture 402 to produce a virtual image that is perceived as being located inside the vehicle, rather than outside”); generating an image to be displayed via the non-transparent display for producing another part of the synthetic light field, based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display (Col 16 lines 37-40 “Light from a display 1 enters an optical system 301 in a housing 302. The optical system then prepares images and sends some of the light through an ambient light suppressor 48 forming a real image after exiting”); and displaying the first light field image and the image simultaneously via the 3D HUD and the non-transparent display, respectively, to produce the synthetic light field (Col 16 lines 33-60).
Regarding Claim 17. Dehkordi further discloses at least a top portion of the image and at least a portion of the first light field image that is to be displayed closest to the viewing zone of the non-transparent display are generated based on same virtual content (See at least Fig. 3C).
Regarding Claim 20. Dehkordi further discloses detecting when at least one virtual object is to be presented via the 3D HUD and the non-transparent display simultaneously; capturing at least one real-world image of a region of a real-world environment that lies in front of the vehicle, by utilising at least one real-world facing camera; and generating at least one synthetic image by utilising the at least one real-world image, based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display, wherein the step of generating the image comprises generating at least a top portion of the image by utilising the at least one synthetic image (Col 21 lines 63-67).
Regarding Claim 21. Dehkordi further discloses determining an amount of attenuation caused by the 3D HUD to a real-world light field passing therethrough, wherein the step of generating the image comprises generating intensity values of at least the top portion of the image, based on the amount of attenuation (Col 22 lines 3-15).
Regarding Claim 22. Dehkordi further discloses determining an average intensity of a real-world light field passing through the 3D HUD, wherein the step of generating the image comprises generating intensity values of at least a top portion of the image, based on the average intensity of the real-world light field (Col 22 lines 3-15, See also Col 27 lines 1-10).
Regarding Claim 24. Dehkordi further discloses capturing a set of real-world images of a region of a real-world environment that surrounds the vehicle, by utilising a set of cameras arranged on an external body of the vehicle; and generating at least one of: (i) a view of said region of the real-world environment, (ii) a 360-degree view of the vehicle in said region of the real-world environment, by utilising the set of real-world images; wherein the step of generating the image comprises generating at least a background of the image by utilising the at least one of: (i) the view of said region of the real-world environment, (ii) the 360-degree view of the vehicle in said region of the real-world environment (Col 21 lines 63-67).
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 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehkordi as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20210165220 A1 Nakada et al.
Regarding Claim 12. As stated above, Dehkordi discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Dehkordi does not specifically disclose lane detectors, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a relative position of the vehicle with respect to lane markings on a road , wherein when generating the image, the at least one processor is configured to: depict external boundaries of the vehicle in the image by utilising a 3D model of the vehicle, based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display, and a position and an orientation of the image plane of the non-transparent display in the vehicle; and depict, in the image, the lane markings with respect to the external boundaries of the vehicle, based on the relative position of the vehicle with respect to the lane markings.
However, Nakada discloses lane detectors, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a relative position of the vehicle with respect to lane markings on a road (para 133-134), wherein when generating the image, the at least one processor is configured to: depict external boundaries of the vehicle in the image by utilising a 3D model of the vehicle (para 138), based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display, and a position and an orientation of the image plane of the non-transparent display in the vehicle; and depict, in the image, the lane markings with respect to the external boundaries of the vehicle, based on the relative position of the vehicle with respect to the lane markings (para 144 and para 156), to produce image for highlighting (para 156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include lane detectors, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a relative position of the vehicle with respect to lane markings on a road, wherein when generating the image, the at least one processor is configured to: depict external boundaries of the vehicle in the image by utilising a 3D model of the vehicle, based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display, and a position and an orientation of the image plane of the non-transparent display in the vehicle; and depict, in the image, the lane markings with respect to the external boundaries of the vehicle, based on the relative position of the vehicle with respect to the lane markings.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dehkordi as applied to claim 14 in view of US 20210165220 A1 Nakada et al.
Regarding Claim 25. As stated above, Dehkordi discloses all the limitations of base claim 14.
Dehkordi does not specifically disclose determining a relative position of the vehicle with respect to lane markings on a road by utilising lane detectors, wherein the step of generating the image comprises: depicting external boundaries of the vehicle in the image by utilising a 3D model of the vehicle, based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display, and a position and an orientation of the image plane of the non-transparent display in the vehicle; and depicting, in the image, the lane markings with respect to the external boundaries of the vehicle, based on the relative position of the vehicle with respect to the lane markings.
However, Nakada discloses determining a relative position of the vehicle with respect to lane markings on a road by utilising lane detectors (para 133-134), wherein the step of generating the image comprises: depicting external boundaries of the vehicle in the image by utilising a 3D model of the vehicle (para 138), based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display, and a position and an orientation of the image plane of the non-transparent display in the vehicle; and depicting, in the image, the lane markings with respect to the external boundaries of the vehicle, based on the relative position of the vehicle with respect to the lane markings (para 144 and para 156), to produce image for highlighting (para 156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include determining a relative position of the vehicle with respect to lane markings on a road by utilising lane detectors, wherein the step of generating the image comprises: depicting external boundaries of the vehicle in the image by utilising a 3D model of the vehicle, based on the relative location of the head or each eye of the at least one user with respect to the image plane of the non-transparent display, and a position and an orientation of the image plane of the non-transparent display in the vehicle; and depicting, in the image, the lane markings with respect to the external boundaries of the vehicle, based on the relative position of the vehicle with respect to the lane markings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 10, 13, 15-16, 18-19, 23 and 26 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights