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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed on 11/26/2024. Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2024 and 2/6/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Remarks
3. The Examiner has provided their own translation of Nakamura (JP 2022077138 A) with the paragraphs numbered. This will be the translation used in the citations below.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki (US 20120170130 A1).
7. Regarding Claim 1, Sasaki teaches a vehicle display device comprising: a display device configured to display an image to a driver of a vehicle (Sasaki: [0002] and [0044]);
And a control unit configured to control the display device (Sasaki: [0202]),
Wherein an image to be displayed by the display device includes a first image and a second image (Sasaki: [0072] Note that the background image 740d is equivalent to the first image and the display object 180 is equivalent to the second image.),
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 (Sasaki: [0087]),
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, and is an image in which a depth that is based on a vanishing point different from the first vanishing point is represented (Sasaki: [0082] and [0089]).
8. Regarding Claim 2, Sasaki remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, teaches the second image includes an image indicating a front object being an object detected on a front side of the vehicle (Sasaki: [0040] and [0067]),
Wherein the image indicating the front object is an image in which a depth that is based on a second vanishing point is represented (Sasaki: [0082]),
And wherein the second vanishing point is positioned on an upper side of the first vanishing point in an image up-down direction (Sasaki: [0090]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 20120170130 A1) in view of Nakamura (JP 2022077138 A).
13. Regarding Claim 3, Sasaki remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further teaches the first image includes a line image being an image representing a boundary of a lane on which the vehicle runs (Sasaki: [0087]).
Sasaki fails to explicitly teach wherein the second image includes a guide image displayed along the line image, 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, and wherein the third vanishing point is shifted from the first vanishing point in an image traverse direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches the first image includes a line image being an image representing a boundary of a lane on which the vehicle runs, wherein the second image includes a guide image displayed along the line image, 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, and wherein the third vanishing point is shifted from the first vanishing point in an image traverse direction (Nakamura: [0050]).
Sasaki and Nakamura are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle displays. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sasaki to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura for the second image to include a guide image along the line image in which a depth is based on a third vanishing point because it provides the benefit of forming an augmented reality in which a virtual object is added and displayed in a real landscape to provide the driver with additional information as explicitly explained in [0002] and [0003] of Nakamura.
14. Regarding Claim 4, Sasaki and Nakamura remains as applied above in Claim 3, and further, Nakamura teaches the line image includes a left line image representing a left-side boundary of the lane, and a right line image representing a right-side boundary of the lane, wherein the third vanishing point to be used in a case where the guide image is displayed along 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 is displayed along the right line image is positioned on a right side of the first vanishing point in the image traverse direction (Nakamura: [0050] Note that Nakamura explains the perspective imaginary image V50 can be displaced in the left-right direction. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the guide image can also be displayed along the right line image positioned on a right side of the first vanishing point.).
Conclusion
15. 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