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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claim 1-4 are currently pending.
2. Claims 1 and 3-4 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama (JP 2022066149 A).
7. Regarding Claim 1, Oyama teaches a vehicle display device comprising: a display device configured to display an image to a driver of a vehicle (Oyama: [0020]);
And a control unit configured to control the display device (Oyama: [0021]),
Wherein an image to be displayed by the display device includes a first image and a second image (Oyama: [0070] and [0072]),
Wherein the first image is an image simulating a scenery of a front side of the vehicle, and is an image in which a depth that is based on a first vanishing point is represented (Oyama: [0070]),
And wherein the second image is an image for information provision that is to be displayed in a same region as a display region of the first image… (Oyama: [0072]),
Wherein the first image includes: a left line image representing a left-side boundary of a lane on which the vehicle runs; and a right line image representing a right-side boundary of the lane (Oyama: [0070]),
And wherein the second image includes a vehicle image representing the vehicle, and the vehicle image is located between the left line image and the right line image (Oyama: [0072] Note that Fig. 12 renders the CTtd image in between the left and right Pbls images.).
Oyama does not explicitly teach the second image... is an image in which a depth that is based on a vanishing point different from the first vanishing point is represented. However, Oyama teaches in [0070] a first image (Pbl) that is displayed, and in [0072] a second image (CTtd) is displayed. Note that a vanishing point is interpreted as a point on a horizon line where parallel lines appear to converge, creating the illusion of depth in a two-dimensional image. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vanishing points of the first image (Pbl) and second image (CTtd) are different because they are at different scales and positions, as shown in at least Fig. 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include first and second images with a depth that are based on a vanishing point different from the other vanishing point as similarly shown in Oyama's [0070] and [0072] use of images Pbl and CTtd. Displaying the first and second images provides the benefit of rendering different information at different locations on the heads-up display.
8. Regarding Claim 2, Oyama remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Oyama teaches the second image includes an image indicating a front object being an object detected on a front side of the vehicle, wherein the image indicating the front object is an image in which a depth that is based on a second vanishing point is represented (Oyama: [0070] and [0072] Note that Fig. 12 renders the CTtd image to indicate the target inter-vehicle distance with a preceding vehicle. The vehicle in the CTtd image is equivalent to the font object detected on a front side of the vehicle. Also, note that image is based on the second vanishing point because the CTtd image has a different vanishing point compared to the Pbl images.).
Oyama discloses the claimed invention except for the second vanishing point is positioned on an upper side of the first vanishing point in an image up-down direction. However, it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to position the second vanishing point on an upper side of the first vanishing point absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the second vanishing point positioned on an upper or bottom side of the first vanishing point due to the changing the second image's size and/or position on the display.
9. Regarding Claim 3, Oyama remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Oyama teaches the second image includes a guide image that overlaps a portion of the left line image or a portion of the right line image (Oyama: [0072] Note that the CTtd is equivalent to the second image including a guide image because the CTtd is displayed to help the driver with a target vehicle-to-vehicle distance. Also, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the left and right line images include lane boundaries and any other virtual image with the same vanishing point as the road. Therefore, the left and right line image is equivalent to CTus which includes Pbl and Pdb and CTtd partially overlaps CTus/Pdb. Additionally, it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to include a guide image that overlaps a portion of the left or right line image absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the guide image in different positions on the display device.),
Wherein the guide image is an image in which a depth that is based on a third vanishing point different from the first vanishing point is represented (Oyama: [0072] One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vanishing points of the first image (CTus/Pbl) and second image (CTtd) are different because they are at different scales and positions, as shown in at least Fig. 12. Also, note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the first and third vanishing points are different, but the second and third vanishing points may be the same.),
And wherein the third vanishing point is shifted from the first vanishing point in an image traverse direction (Oyama: [0072] A traverse direction is interpreted as a direction across the image. Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, shifting the third vanishing point from the first vanishing point in an image traverse direction is equivalent to shifting the vanishing point in an up-down direction of the image.).
10. Regarding Claim 4, Oyama remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Oyama teaches the third vanishing point to be used in a case where the guide image along overlaps a portion of the left line image is positioned on a left side of the first vanishing point in the image traverse direction, and wherein the third vanishing point to be used in a case where the guide image along overlaps a portion of the right line image is positioned on a right side of the first vanishing point in the image traverse direction (Oyama: [0072] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the left and right line images include lane boundaries and any other virtual image with the same vanishing point as the road. Therefore, the left and right line image(s) are equivalent to CTus which includes Pbl and Pdb and CTtd partially overlaps CTus/Pdb. Additionally, it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to include a guide image that overlaps a portion of the left or right line image absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the guide image in different positions on the display device.).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Oyama (JP 2022066149 A) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of the first image including a left and right line image and the second image including a vehicle image in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraphs [0070] and [0072]. Oyama teaches to display a lane marking image and a target vehicle-to-vehicle distance image with different vanishing points.
12. Oyama (JP 2022066149 A) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language.
13. Claims 1-4 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noda (US 20200035100 A1)
Talamonti (US 20180281856 A1)
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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 T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights