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 Objections
Claims 1-13 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A display control method comprising:
acquiring a first image corresponding to a field of view of a driver in a vehicle interior including a display area;
generating a second image by adding, in a first [[display]] form, a display object by a display to the display area in the first image;
estimating an attention state of the driver by applying one or more attention estimation models to the second image; and
controlling a display form of the display object to be displayed by the display in the display area in the vehicle interior, depending on an estimation result of the attention state.
For claim 2, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 1, wherein the controlling the display form of the display object includes
changing the display form of the display object from the first [[display]] form to a second [[display]] form in which attention is suppressed as compared with the first [[display]] form, in a case where the estimation result of the attention state is a first [[estimation]] result.
For claim 3, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 2, wherein the controlling the display form of the display object further includes
maintaining the display form of the display object in the first [[display]] form in a case where the estimation result of the attention state is a second [[estimation]] result.
For claim 4, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 1, wherein
the estimating includes generating map information indicating a two-dimensional distribution of prediction errors corresponding to the second image, and
the controlling the display form of the display object includes controlling the display form of the display object from the first [[display]] form to a second [[display]] form in which attention is suppressed, in a case where an attention state pattern corresponding to the second image and the map information matches a preregistered pattern.
For claim 5, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 4, wherein the controlling the display form of the display object further includes
controlling the display form of the display object to the first [[display]] form, in a case where [[an]] the attention state pattern corresponding to the second image and the map information does not match the preregistered pattern.
For claim 6, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 2, wherein
the first [[display]] form includes displaying the display object at first brightness, and
the second [[display]] form includes displaying the display object at second brightness lower than the first brightness.
For claim 7, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 2, wherein
the first [[display]] form includes displaying the display object at first brightness, and
the second [[display]] form includes displaying the display object at brightness gradually increasing from second brightness lower than the first brightness.
For claim 8, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 2, wherein
the first [[display]] form includes displaying the display object in a first color, and
the second [[display]] form includes displaying the display object in a second color different from the first color in one or more of saturation, brightness, and hue.
For claim 9, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 2, wherein
the first [[display]] form includes displaying the display object after a first period of time elapses, and
the second [[display]] form includes displaying the display object after a second period of time elapses, the second period of time being longer than the first period of time.
For claim 10, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A display control method comprising:
acquiring a first image corresponding to a field of view of a driver in a vehicle interior including a display area;
generating a second image by adding, in a first [[display]] form, a display object by a display to the display area in the first image;
estimating an attention state of the driver with respect to the first image by applying one or more attention estimation models to the first image;
estimating [[an]] the attention state of the driver with respect to the second image by applying the one or more attention estimation models to the second image;
evaluating an influence of the display object on the attention state with respect to the first image, depending on [[an]] a first estimation result of the attention state with respect to the first image and [[an]] a second estimation result of the attention state with respect to the second image; and
controlling [[the]] a display form of the display object to be displayed by the display in the display area in the vehicle interior, depending on [[the]] an evaluation result.
For claim 11, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 10, wherein the evaluating includes
evaluating [[an]] the influence of the display object on the attention state with respect to the first image, depending on correlation among [[an]] the first estimation result of the attention state with respect to the first image, [[an]] the second estimation result of the attention state with respect to the second image, a line of sight of the driver, and the attention state of the driver.
For claim 12, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 10, wherein the evaluating includes
evaluating [[an]] the influence of the display object on the attention state with respect to the first image, depending on correlation among [[an]] the first estimation result of the attention state with respect to the first image, [[an]] the second estimation result of the attention state with respect to the second image, a subjective evaluation by the driver, and the attention state of the driver.
For claim 13, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The display control method according to claim 10, wherein
the estimating for the first image includes
generating first map information indicating a two-dimensional distribution of values of prediction errors corresponding to the first image, variances of the prediction errors corresponding to the first image, or combinations of the values and the variances of the prediction errors corresponding to the first image, and
the estimating for the second image includes
generating second map information indicating a two-dimensional distribution of values of prediction errors corresponding to the second image, variances of the prediction errors corresponding to the second image, or combinations of the values and the variances of the prediction errors corresponding to the second image.
For claim 16, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A display control device comprising:
a memory; and
a hardware processor coupled to the memory and configured to:
acquire a first image corresponding to a field of view of a driver in a vehicle interior including a display area;
generate a second image by adding, in a first [[display]] form, a display object by a display to the display area in the first image;
estimate an attention state of the driver by applying one or more attention estimation models to the second image;
determine a display form of the display object to be displayed by the display in the display area in the vehicle interior, depending on an estimation result of the attention state; and
control the display to display the display object in the display form that has been determined.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-15 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.
For dependent claim 2, parent claim 1 establishes “a first display form” and “a display form”. Claim 2 goes on to recite the phrase “the display form” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “first display form” and “display form” is being referenced by the phrase “the display form”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claims 3 and 6-9, these claims depend from claim 2 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 2. Therefore, claims 3 and 6-9 are likewise indefinite.
Furthermore, for dependent claim 3, parent claim 1 establishes “an estimation result” and parent claim 2 establishes “a first estimation result”. Claim 3 goes on to recite the phrase “the estimation result” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “estimation result” and “first estimation result” is being referenced by the phrase “the estimation result”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 4, parent claim 1 establishes “a first display form” and “a display form”. Claim 4 goes on to recite the phrase “the display form” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “first display form” and “display form” is being referenced by the phrase “the display form”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claim 5, this claim depends from claim 4 and inherits the deficiencies of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 is likewise indefinite.
For independent claim 10, this clam establishes a first “an attention state” and a second “an attention state”. Claim 10 goes on to recite the phrase “the attention state” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established first “attention state” and second “attention state” is being referenced by the phrase “the attention state”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claims 11-15, these claims depend from claim 10 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 10. Therefore, claims 11-15 are likewise indefinite.
Furthermore, for dependent claim 13, this claim establishes first “prediction errors” and second “prediction errors”. Claim 13 goes on to recite the phrase “the prediction errors” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established first “prediction errors” and second “prediction errors” is being referenced by the phrase “the prediction errors”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claims 14-15, these claims depend from claim 13 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP 2018090170 A) (made of record the IDS submitted 3/03/2025) (citations made with respect to the corresponding English translation attached to this Office Action) in view of Woo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0087580 A1, hereinafter “Woo”).
For claim 1, Kondo discloses a display control method (disclosing a method for control of a head-up display (HUD) (page 4)) comprising: acquiring a first image corresponding to a field of view of a driver in a vehicle interior including a display area (disclosing a camera 2 for capturing a first image corresponding to a viewpoint as a field of view of a driver in a vehicle interior including a windshield 10 as a display area (Fig. 1; pages 4-5)); generating a second image by adding, in a first display form, a display object by a display to the display area in the first image (disclosing generation of a HUD image 20 as a second image of a display object at a first hue of a first display form by a display 12 to the windshield in the captured first image (Figs. 1-2; pages 5-6)); estimating an attention state of the driver by applying one or more attention estimation models to the second image (disclosing a visual saliency algorithm as an attention estimate model for calculating and estimating an attention state of the driver to the HUD image (page 7)); and controlling a display form of the display object to be displayed by the display in the display area in the vehicle interior, depending on an estimation result of the attention state (disclosing a hue as a display form of the HUD image may be controlled through adjustment based on a result of the attention state of the driver as determined for display by display 12 on the windshield (pages 8 and 10)).
Examiner finds Kondo discloses estimating an attention state for the reasons discussed above.
In any case, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Woo.
Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26). Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62). It follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Kondo with the teachings of Woo. Woo is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26). Woo discloses its use of attention estimation is advantageous in appropriately adjusting display of objects under attention by a user (par. 54-56). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Woo into Kondo for appropriately adjusting display of objects under attention by a user. Therefore, claim 1 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 2, depending on claim 1, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses wherein the controlling the display form includes changing the display form of the display object from the first display form to a second display form in which attention is suppressed as compared with the first display form, in a case where the estimation result of the attention state is a first estimation result (Kondo discloses controlling the hue of the HUD image to change the hue from the first hue to a second hue to suppress attention where the result of the attention state is determined as excessively conspicuous (pages 8 and 10); Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26); Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62); and it follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver).
For claim 3, depending on claim 1, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses wherein the controlling the display form further includes maintaining the display form of the display object in the first display form in a case where the estimation result of the attention state is a second estimation result (Kondo discloses maintaining the hue of the HUD image at the first hue where the result of the attention state is determined as to be within an appropriate range of visibility and conspicuousness (pages 6-8); Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26); Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62); and it follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver).
For claim 6, depending on claim 2, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses wherein the first display form includes displaying the display object at first brightness, and the second display form includes displaying the display object at second brightness lower than the first brightness (Kondo explains the HUD image may be displayed at a first brightness and that the HUD image may be adjusted to be displayed at a second brightness lower than the first brightness to fall within an appropriate range of visibility (pages 10 and 11)).
For claim 7, depending on claim 2, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses wherein the first display form includes displaying the display object at first brightness, and the second display form includes displaying the display object at brightness gradually increasing from second brightness lower than the first brightness (Kondo explains the HUD image may be displayed at a first brightness and that the HUD image may be adjusted to be displayed at a second brightness lower than the first brightness to fall within an appropriate range of visibility (pages 10 and 11); Kondo further explains its system may gradually increase a visibility value of the HUD image (page 9) and it is understood its HUD image may be displayed at brightness gradually increasing from the second brightness lower than the first brightness).
For claim 8, depending on claim 2, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses wherein the first display form includes displaying the display object in a first color, and the second display form includes displaying the display object in a second color different from the first color in one or more of saturation, brightness, and hue (Kondo discloses displaying the HUD image in a first color at a first hue and displaying the HUD image in a second color at a different hue (pages 8 and 10)).
For claim 10, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses a display control method (Kondo discloses a method for control of a head-up display (HUD) (page 4)) comprising: acquiring a first image corresponding to a field of view of a driver in a vehicle interior including a display area (Kondo discloses a camera 2 for capturing a first image corresponding to a viewpoint as a field of view of a driver in a vehicle interior including a windshield 10 as a display area (Fig. 1; pages 4-5)); generating a second image by adding, in a first display form, a display object by a display to the display area in the first image (Kondo discloses generation of a HUD image 20 as a second image of a display object at a first hue of a first display form by a display 12 to the windshield in the captured first image (Figs. 1-2; pages 5-6)); estimating an attention state of the driver with respect to the first image by applying one or more attention estimation models to the first image (Kondo discloses a visual saliency algorithm as an attention estimate model for calculating and estimating an attention state of the driver to the captured first image as a background area to the HUD image (pages 7-8); Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26); Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62); and it follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver to its first image); estimating an attention state of the driver with respect to the second image by applying the one or more attention estimation models to the second image (Kondo discloses a visual saliency algorithm as an attention estimate model for calculating and estimating an attention state of the driver to the HUD image (page 7); Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26); Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62); and it follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver to its second image); evaluating an influence of the display object on the attention state with respect to the first image, depending on an estimation result of the attention state with respect to the first image and an estimation result of the attention state with respect to the second image (Kondo discloses its system judges an influence on visibility of the display object of the HUD image on the salience and attention state with respect to the captured first image based on the result of the attention state with respect to the captured first image and the HUD image (pages 7-8); Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26); Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62); and it follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver to its first image and second image); and controlling the display form of the display object to be displayed by the display in the display area in the vehicle interior, depending on the evaluation result (Kondo discloses a hue as a display form of the HUD image may be controlled through adjustment based on an evaluation result of the attention state of the driver as determined for display by display 12 on the windshield (pages 8 and 10)).
For claim 11, depending on claim 10, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses wherein the evaluating includes evaluating an influence of the display object on the attention state with respect to the first image, depending on correlation among an estimation result of the attention state with respect to the first image, an estimation result of the attention state with respect to the second image, a line of sight of the driver, and the attention state of the driver (Kondo discloses its system judges an influence on visibility of the display object of the HUD image on the salience and attention state with respect to the captured first image based on a correlation of the result of the attention state with respect to the captured first image, the result of the attention state with respect to the HUD image, a line-of-sight of the driver, and the attention state of the driver (pages 7-8); Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26); Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62); and it follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver to its first image and second image).
For claim 12, depending on claim 10, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses wherein the evaluating includes evaluating an influence of the display object on the attention state with respect to the first image, depending on correlation among an estimation result of the attention state with respect to the first image, an estimation result of the attention state with respect to the second image, a subjective evaluation by the driver, and the attention state of the driver (Kondo discloses its system judges an influence on visibility of the display object of the HUD image on the salience and attention state with respect to the captured first image based on a correlation of the result of the attention state with respect to the captured first image, the result of the attention state with respect to the HUD image, a subjective evaluation by the driver, and the attention state of the driver (pages 7-8); Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26); Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62); and it follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver to its first image and second image).
For claim 16, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses a display control device (Kondo discloses a HUD unit 1 as a display control device (Fig. 3; page 2)) comprising: a memory (Kondo discloses memory 132 (Fig. 3; page 3)); and a hardware processor coupled to the memory (Kondo discloses a central processing unit (CPU) coupled to the memory (Fig. 3; page 3)) and configured to: acquire a first image corresponding to a field of view of a driver in a vehicle interior including a display area (Kondo discloses a camera 2 for capturing a first image corresponding to a viewpoint as a field of view of a driver in a vehicle interior including a windshield 10 as a display area (Fig. 1; pages 4-5)); generate a second image by adding, in a first display form, a display object by a display to the display area in the first image (Kondo discloses generation of a HUD image 20 as a second image at a first hue of a first display form by a display 12 to the windshield in the captured first image (Figs. 1-2; pages 5-6)); estimate an attention state of the driver by applying one or more attention estimation models to the second image (Kondo discloses a visual saliency algorithm as an attention estimate model for calculating and estimating an attention state of the driver to the HUD image (page 7); Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26); Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62); and it follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver); determine a display form of the display object to be displayed by the display in the display area in the vehicle interior, depending on an estimation result of the attention state (Kondo discloses a hue as a display form of the HUD image may be controlled through adjustment based on a result of the attention state of the driver as determined for display by display 12 on the windshield (pages 8 and 10); Woo similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality to display an image of physical and virtual objects (par. 25-26); Woo explains its system implements a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of a user to the physical and virtual objects presented in images of augmented reality (par. 50, 56 and 62); and it follows Kondo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Woo to implement a visual attention mechanism as an attention estimation model for estimating an attention state of its driver); and control the display to display the display object in the display form that has been determined (Kondo discloses a hue as a display form of the HUD image may be controlled through adjustment based on a result of the attention state of the driver as determined for display by display 12 on the windshield (pages 8 and 10)).
For claim 17, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses a display control system (Kondo discloses a HUD system (Fig. 3; page 2)) comprising: an imaging sensor (Kondo discloses a camera 2 as an imaging sensor (Figs. 1 and 3; page 2)); the display control device according to claim 16 that receives an image acquired by the imaging sensor (see above as to claim 16; Kondo further discloses the HUD unit receives an image acquired by the camera (Figs. 1 and 3; pages 3-4)); and a display controlled by the display control device (Kondo discloses a display 12 controlled by the HUD unit (Figs. 1 and 3; pages 2-3)).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Woo further in view of Takei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0144302 A1, hereinafter “Takei”).
For claim 9, Kondo as modified by Woo discloses wherein the first display form includes displaying the display object after a first period of time elapses, and the second display form includes displaying the display object after a second period of time elapses (Kondo discloses its system presents the HUD image for display in accordance with time intervals so that the HUD image may be displayed at the first hue after a first time interval as a first period of time elapses and the HUD image may be displayed at the second hue after a second time interval as a second period of time elapses (pages 6-8)).
Kondo as modified by Woo does not disclose a second period of time being longer than a first period of time.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Takei.
Takei similarly discloses a system and method for presenting data for display to a driver (par. 32). Takei explains its system may increase a length of a time period so that a second period of time is longer than a first period of time (par. 33-35). It follows Kondo and Woo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Takei to implement its second period of time to be longer than its first period of time.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Kondo and Woo with the teachings of Takei. Takei is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting data for display to a driver (par. 32). Takei discloses its use of increased length of time period is advantageous in ensuring information is appropriately output for display to a driver (par. 33-35). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Takei into Kondo and Woo for ensuring information is appropriately output for display to a driver. Therefore, claim 9 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo in view of Woo further in view of Tawari et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0097754 A1, hereinafter “Tawari”).
For claim 13, depending on claim 10, Kondo as modified by Woo does not disclose generating map information indicating a two dimensional distribution of values of prediction errors, variances of the prediction errors, or combinations of value and variances of the predictions errors.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Tawari.
Tawari similarly discloses a system and method for evaluating saliency for a driver to determine an attention state of the driver (par. 2 and 31). Tawari explains its saliency may be determined by generating map information of a two dimensional distribution of values of prediction errors (Fig. 6; par. 52). It follows Kondo and Woo may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Tawari to implement map information for generating first map information of prediction errors corresponding to its first image and generating second map information of prediction errors corresponding to its second image.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Kondo and Woo with the teachings of Tawari. Tawari is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for evaluating saliency for a driver to determine an attention state of the driver (par. 2 and 31). Tawari discloses its use of prediction errors is advantageous in minimizing loss for appropriately evaluating saliency and an attention state for a driver (par. 2, 31 and 52). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Tawari into Kondo and Woo for minimizing loss for appropriately evaluating saliency and an attention state for a driver. Therefore, claim 13 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to address any claim objections raised above in the Detailed Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights