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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 and acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed on 29 November 2024 and 17 October 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim 6 recites "determine that an event unsuitable for projecting the image by the projector apparatus is present", causing the examiner to consider what is intended/claimed by the word "unsuitable". The examiner consulted the specification and found the teachings of paragraphs [0057-0058], which at least provide a requisite for understanding with a plurality of examples. Thus, the examiner will interpret the language broadly in light of the specification but considers the specification to describe with sufficient detail what may be included with this terminology.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“projection management apparatus” – claims 1-7
“line-of-sight estimator” – claims 1, 3-4, 7
“position estimator” – claims 1, 5
“definer” – claims 1, 2, 7
“projector apparatus” – claims 1-2, 6
“changer” – claim 2
“seat information obtainer” – claim 3
“image obtainer” – claims 4, 5
“determiner” – claim 6
“proposer” – claim 6
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding “projection management apparatus”, the examiner notes that only paragraph [0011] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “Note that the control apparatus 110 is an example of a projection management apparatus”; however this is merely exemplary and the structure of the control apparatus is also exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims (not an explicit redefinition). Ultimately, the examiner is unsure of what physical structure is claimed by a “projection management apparatus”; is it purely software? Is it a combination of hardware and software? Is it only a processor or does it include objects such as a camera and a display?
Regarding “line-of-sight estimator”, the examiner notes that only paragraph [0047] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a line-of-sight estimator”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding “position estimator”, the examiner notes that only paragraph [0051] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a position estimator”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "definer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0054] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a definer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding “projector apparatus”, the examiner notes that paragraph [0024] provides the requisite for understanding.
Regarding "changer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0056] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as, for example, a changer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "seat information obtainer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0038] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a seat information obtainer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "image obtainer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0036] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of an image obtainer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "determiner", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0059] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a determiner”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "proposer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0064] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a proposer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
The examiner notes that while claim 8 utilizes similar verbiage as that found above, the claim definitively states that a processor performs the claimed functions (thus, providing corresponding structure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“projection management apparatus” – claims 1-7
“line-of-sight estimator” – claims 1, 3-4, 7
“position estimator” – claims 1, 5
“definer” – claims 1, 2, 7
“projector apparatus” – claims 1-2, 6
“changer” – claim 2
“seat information obtainer” – claim 3
“image obtainer” – claims 4, 5
“determiner” – claim 6
“proposer” – claim 6
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding “projection management apparatus”, the examiner notes that only paragraph [0011] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “Note that the control apparatus 110 is an example of a projection management apparatus”; however this is merely exemplary and the structure of the control apparatus is also exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims (not an explicit redefinition). Ultimately, the examiner is unsure of what physical structure is claimed by a “projection management apparatus”; is it purely software? Is it a combination of hardware and software? Is it only a processor or does it include objects such as a camera and a display?
Regarding “line-of-sight estimator”, the examiner notes that only paragraph [0047] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a line-of-sight estimator”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding “position estimator”, the examiner notes that only paragraph [0051] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a position estimator”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "definer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0054] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a definer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "changer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0056] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as, for example, a changer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "seat information obtainer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0038] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a seat information obtainer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "image obtainer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0036] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of an image obtainer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "determiner", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0059] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a determiner”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Regarding "proposer", the examiner notes that only paragraph [0064] appears to provide some form of structure, where it states “…the processor 111 functions as an example of a proposer”, however again, this is merely exemplary and the examiner cannot import an example from the specification into the claims.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Further, Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 8 describe projection of an image into the cabin of a vehicle but do not disclose what the images pertain to in any way. Claims 4 and 5 obtain more descriptive images, but the examiner is unsure why the imaging device would obtain an image of the interior of the cabin to include a position of a projector and a user to then output this image, as it does not assist the operator in a meaningful way. After reviewing the specification, the examiner is still unsure as to what image is actually projected (a HUD with speedometer information, a map guidance information, enhanced image data from outside of the vehicle such as night vision?). The independent claims fail to particularly point out what may be output by the imaging device, which appears to be the inventive concept of the invention. Depending upon the intended output, the examiner would perform searches in different areas (a Heads-Up Display showing speed is classified differently when compared to a movie/video streaming projector, for instance). See MPEP 2172.01.
Claims 2-7 depend upon rejected claim 1 and do not resolve the deficiency of note. Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to apparatuses. Therefore, claims 1-8 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groupings of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A projection management apparatus, comprising:
a line-of-sight estimator configured to estimate a line of sight of a person in a cabin of a vehicle;
a position estimator configured to estimate a position of a projector apparatus that is installed in the vehicle and projects an image in the cabin; and
a definer configured to define a projection direction of the projector apparatus using the line of sight and the position.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The examiner first makes note of the claim interpretation section; at this time, the “apparatus” and its corresponding “estimators” and “definer” have no definitive structure that would otherwise indicate a potential additional element. A human is capable of generally being aware their own gaze in addition to observing the gaze of others (line of sight estimator). Further, a human may generally understand the relative position of a projector in the environment (the claim does not appear to claim the projector, but rather only estimating a position of an object/the projector, thus the position estimator). Finally, a human may generally be aware of relative positions and orientations of sightlines and projections (definer). Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, there are no further additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea, as noted above, as the apparatus, estimators, and definer have no explicit structure. Thus, no additional elements are present to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “apparatus” claim is not provided with sufficient structure to amount to an “additional limitation” and the “estimators” and “definer” merely perform tasks that may be performed by the human mind. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible and as such, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. However, claim 8 at least describes that a non-transitory memory is used (for structure purposes). In the 101 Analysis, Step 2A, it would be classified as an additional element, but one that is generic and, in Step 2B, one that is considered an essential additional element using generic computing components necessary to perform the mental process. Merely applying the judicial exception (the steps of the method carried out by the memory) to a generic computing component cannot serve as an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 8 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 to the reasons provided in claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-7, the claims specify and/or further limits similar to the previously addressed abstract idea above and does not recite additional limitations that present a practical application nor amount to “significantly more” for analogous reasons above.
Regarding claim 2: Claim 2 merely states that a change in the projection direction may be made (merely further limiting the abstract idea as a human is capable of changing the relative position and orientation between their sightline and a projector).
Regarding claim 3: Claim 3 merely states that line of sight may be estimated by seating position (merely further limiting the abstract idea, as a human in the backseat of a car may generally be aware of the sightlines of a person in the front seat based upon a general seating position).
Regarding claims 4 and 5: Claims 4 and 5 merely describe a generic component that receives images and general relative positional information (merely further limiting the abstract idea, as eyes are considered “image obtainers”).
Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 merely describes a generic “unsuitable event” in which a projection may be blocked or otherwise not useful and suggests an alternative location (merely further limiting the abstract idea, as a human would generally understand if a projection is blocked and consider an alternative placement).
Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 merely describes that a plurality of users’ gazes may be tracked (merely further limiting the abstract idea, as a human would generally be able to see where multiple people are looking).
Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. At this time, the examiner is unsure what may “amount to significantly more”, as the image to be output (supposedly to assist an operator) is not described.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavger et al. (US 2025/0111810 A1, filed 13 December 2022, hereinafter Tavger) in view of Tomita (US 2018/0357036 A1; published 13 December 2018, hereinafter Tomita).
Regarding independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 8 (non-transitory memory apparatus): Tavger discloses A projection management apparatus, comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0003, 0006, 0023] and Figure [1A, 2], Tavger discloses a system/apparatus that controls a projection device to display an augmented reality image in a vehicle for an operator) / A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program causing a processor included in a projection management apparatus to function as: (per claim 8) (Paragraph [0003, 0006, 0023, 0035] and Figure [1A, 2], Tavger discloses a system/apparatus embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium to be executed by a processor that executes instructions to control a projection device to display an augmented reality image in a vehicle for an operator)
a line-of-sight estimator configured to estimate a line of sight of a person in a cabin of a vehicle; (per claims 1 and 8) (Paragraph [0016, 0065-0066], Tavger discloses monitoring a line of sight/direction of gaze of an operator’s pupils, for instance)
[a position estimator configured to estimate a position of a] projector apparatus that is installed in the vehicle and projects an image in the cabin; and (per claims 1 and 8) (Paragraph [0058, 0065], Tavger discloses cameras used as sensors for tracking and a projector apparatus installed in the cabin of the vehicle)
a definer configured to define a projection direction of the projector apparatus using the line of sight and [the position]. (per claims 1 and 8) (Paragraph [0023, 0087-0088, 0093-0100], Tavger discloses that the device determines (defines) a location including direction/orientation to display the image using a projector. As a location is changed, this includes a change in “direction” as well, as a change in position in projected light reasonably includes a direction)
Tavger discloses a system that monitors a user’s gaze in a vehicle and projects an image in a location that coincides with the gaze. The disclosure of Tavger differs from the instant application in the implicit disclosure of camera extrinsics to localize the projector. This is implicitly taught, as Tavger discloses that cameras are used as “some or all of the sensors” (Paragraph [0065]) and in order to determine where to project light, a known relationship must be established between the camera, the projector, and the environment. Registration of sensing devices and camera extrinsics are well known in the art).
Tomita, in a similar field of endeavor of camera and projector systems, teaches a position estimator configured to estimate a position of a projector apparatus that is installed in the [vehicle] and projects an image in the cabin; and (per claims 1 and 8) (Paragraph [0069] and Figure [2], Tomita teaches that the position detection section (comprising the camera, as seen in Figure [2]) determines the position of the projector within the field of view of the camera)
Tavger and Tomita are in a similar field of endeavor of camera and projector systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Tavger to explicitly disclose the implicit teaching that the cameras and projector of the system are registered to determine relative positions as taught by Tomita, as this is implicitly taught. As discussed above, camera extrinsics are necessary in order to localize the camera and projector; without establishing a known position of the projector, one could not reasonably know where to project an image for an operator. Put simply, in order to determine the projection location of the image of Tavger, the origin of the projection apparatus must also be known (at least a relative position to the sensing device), or the image would be output to a random position in space. Thus, this is an implicit teaching of Tavger that is well-known to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, and the examiner relies upon the teachings of Tomita as merely a reference which explicitly states that a projector may be localized with a camera.
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Tavger in view of Tomita. Tavger further discloses further comprising a seat information obtainer configured to obtain seat information that indicates a state of a seat, wherein the line-of-sight estimator estimates the line of sight using the seat information. (Paragraph [0009, 0077, 0089], Tavger discloses determination of head direction/line of sight by seat location (seat information))
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Tavger in view of Tomita. Tavger further discloses further comprising an image obtainer configured to obtain an image in which an inside of the cabin is taken, wherein the line-of-sight estimator estimates the line of sight using the image obtained by the image obtainer. (Paragraph [0015-0016, 0065] and Claim [10], Tavger discloses cameras that determine gaze orientation)
Regarding claim 5: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Tavger in view of Tomita. Tavger does not explicitly disclose that the cameras determine the position of the projector, however as described in the parent claim, this is implicitly taught. Tavger discloses a system that monitors a user’s gaze in a vehicle and projects an image in a location that coincides with the gaze. The disclosure of Tavger differs from the instant application in the implicit disclosure of camera extrinsics to localize the projector. This is implicitly taught, as Tavger discloses that cameras are used as “some or all of the sensors” (Paragraph [0065]) and in order to determine where to project light, a known relationship must be established between the camera, the projector, and the environment. Registration of sensing devices and camera extrinsics are well known in the art).
Tomita, in a similar field of endeavor of camera and projector systems, teaches further comprising an image obtainer configured to obtain an image in which an inside of the cabin is taken, wherein the position estimator estimates the position using the image obtained by the image obtainer. (Paragraph [0069] and Figure [2], Tomita teaches that the position detection section (comprising the camera, as seen in Figure [2]) determines the position of the projector within the field of view of the camera)
Tavger and Tomita are in a similar field of endeavor of camera and projector systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Tavger to explicitly disclose the implicit teaching that the cameras and projector of the system are registered to determine relative positions as taught by Tomita, as this is implicitly taught. As discussed above, camera extrinsics are necessary in order to localize the camera and projector; without establishing a known position of the projector, one could not reasonably know where to project an image for an operator. Put simply, in order to determine the projection location of the image of Tavger, the origin of the projection apparatus must also be known (at least a relative position to the sensing device), or the image would be output to a random position in space. Thus, this is an implicit teaching of Tavger that is well-known to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, and the examiner relies upon the teachings of Tomita as merely a reference which explicitly states that a projector may be localized with a camera.
Regarding claim 6: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Tavger in view of Tomita. Tavger further discloses further comprising: a determiner configured to determine that an event unsuitable for projecting the image by the projector apparatus is present; and a proposer configured to propose an installation position of the projector apparatus if it is determined that the event unsuitable is present by the determiner. (Paragraph [0097], Tavger discloses that the system can determine if the viewer’s head position and/or orientation changes (broadly considered an “event unsuitable for projecting the image”, as the image would no longer align with the line of sight) and calculate an updated line of sight and updated display location (“proposing” by implementation a new location of display, corresponding to a “position” of the projector beam))
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavger in view of Tomita or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavger in view of Tomita in further view of Gottwaldt et al. (DE 102007005028 B4; published 27 Oct 2022, reference made to paragraphs of English translation provided with this office action, hereinafter Gottwaldt).
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Tavger in view of Tomita. Tavger further discloses further comprising a changer configured to control the projector apparatus to change the projection direction of the projector apparatus to the projection direction defined by the definer. (Paragraph [0023, 0087-0088, 0093-0100], Tavger discloses that the device determines (defines) a location including direction/orientation to display the image using a projector. As a location is changed, this includes a change in “direction” as well, as a change in position in projected light reasonably includes a direction)
While the examiner holds that the change in location of the projection also reasonably constitutes a change in direction of the projector apparatus, in an alternative interpretation wherein a physical device such as a gimbal is intended to rotate the projection apparatus, Gottwaldt, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle projection systems, teaches further comprising a changer configured to control the projector apparatus to change the projection direction of the projector apparatus to the projection direction defined by the definer. (Paragraph [0033], Gottwaldt teaches a projector controlled by a control unit to mechanically change the position and orientation of the projector)
Tavger and Gottwaldt are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle projection systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Tavger to include a physical device to change the position and orientation of the projector as taught by Gottwaldt in the interest of providing further adjustability (thus impacting the effective projection angles). See MPEP 2144.04.V.D.; merely making the projector of Tavger adjustable is an obvious design choice.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tavger in view of Tomita in further view of Ikeda et al. (US 2019/0004599 A1; published 03 Jan 2019, hereinafter Ikeda).
Regarding claim 7: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Tavger in view of Tomita. Tavger does not explicitly disclose tracking of a plurality of operators.
However, Ikeda, in a similar field of endeavor of projection systems, teaches wherein the person includes a plurality of people in the cabin, the line-of-sight estimator estimates the lines of sight of the plurality of people in the cabin, and the definer defines the projection direction using the lines of sight of the plurality of people in the cabin. (Paragraph [0200-0208, 0241] and Figure [20, 23-24], Ikeda discloses a projection system that detects the lines of sight of a plurality of users)
Tavger and Ikeda are in a similar field of endeavor of projection systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Tavger to include the tracking of a plurality of operators, as taught by Ikeda, as this is merely duplication. Ikeda is merely relied upon as a reference that shows that tracking of a plurality of lines of sight was also known in the art at the time of effective filing.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2012/0224060 A1
REDUCING DRIVER DISTRACTION USINGA
HEADS-UP DISPLAY
Gurevich et al.
Filed: 10 Feb 2012
Pub: 06 Sep 2012
Discloses a system with an interior camera that images a line of sight of a user and projects an image based on the line of sight, such as for navigation.
2
US 2025/0383707 A1
METHOD FOR ROBUST AUTOMATIC
ADAPTATION OF HEAD-UP DISPLAYS
EWENDER et al.
Filed: 07 Jun 2023
Pub: 18 Dec 2025
Priority: 24 Jun 2022
Discloses a system that includes a camera to track a user's gaze, identify changes in the direction of the gaze, determine if predetermined ignoring criteria is met, and adjust an output of a heads-up display.
3
US 2019/0049736 A1
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE POINT OF FOCUS
COMMUNICATION
TANRIOVER et al
Filed: 28 Sep 2018
Pub: 14 Feb 2019
Discusses a system comprising image sensors that receive image data including a gaze direction of an occupant and projecting a display corresponding to the direction.
4
US 2024/0118544 A1
VIRTUAL IMAGE OPTICAL SYSTEM, AND
VIRTUAL IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE AND
ON-VEHICLE SYSTEM INCLUDING
VIRTUAL IMAGE OPTICAL SYSTEM
KANO et al.
Filed: 21 Sep 2023
Pub: 11 Apr 2024
Discusses a system that tracks a user gaze with a camera and projects an image based upon the gaze location.
5
US 2018/0373030 A1
IMAGE DISPLAY APPARATUS AND IMAGE
DISPLAY METHOD
Kusanagi et al.
Filed: 26 Jul 2018
Pub: 27 Dec 2018
Discusses a system that tracks the gaze of a user and projects a HUD in the gaze location of a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658