DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 12-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szczerba et al (US 20100253526 A1).
RE claim 1, Szczerba teaches A computer-implemented method for enhanced displays via Augmented Reality (AR) (abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining, via one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle, contextual data associated with an occupant of the vehicle associated with an AR viewer (Figs 1-2, 13, [0051]-[0052]);
determining, via the one or more processors, a position of a display relative to the electronic device (Fig 22-29, [0051], [0118], [0132], [0138], [0157] wherein the system detects in-vehicle displays and nearby car/object/signboard locations and determines the position in the local coordinate. This is equivalent to the claimed a position of a display relative to the on-board electronic device in Applicant’s disclosure in [0044], [0062] );
determining, via the one or more processors, a field of view of the occupant of the vehicle (Fig 2, [0167]-[0168], [0173]); and
based upon the contextual data, the position, and the field of view, presenting, via the one or more processors, an occupant-specific image via the AR viewer (Figs 34-37, [0053], [0157], [0160], [0199]-[0200]).
RE claim 4, Szczerba teaches wherein the occupant-specific image indicates a safety tip to ensure safe operation of the vehicle (Figs 34-37, [0183]).
RE claim 6, Szczerba teaches wherein obtaining the contextual data comprises: obtaining, via the one or more processors, the contextual data from an audio sensor disposed in the vehicle ([0132], [0160], [0174] where voice command or voice recognition indicates an audio sensor).
RE claim 7, Szczerba teaches wherein obtaining the contextual data comprises: obtaining, via the one or more processors, the contextual data from an image sensor configured to have a field of view oriented within the vehicle (Figs 1-2,16, [0052], [0167]-[0168], [0173]).
RE claim 12, Szczerba teaches wherein the AR viewer is at least one of a smart windshield, a smart window, or a smart mirror of the vehicle (Fig 1, [0051], [0054]).
RE claim 13, Szczerba teaches wherein determining the field of view comprises: obtaining, via the one or more processors, orientation data from the AR viewer (Fig 1, [0051]-[0052]).
RE claim 14, Szczerba teaches wherein determining the field of view comprises: obtaining, via the one or more processors, image data generated by an image sensor configured to have a field of view oriented within the vehicle; and based upon the image data, determining, via the one or more processors, a location of the occupant within the vehicle (Figs 1-2,17, [0052], [0167]-[0168], [0172]-[0173], [0191], [0196] etc.).
Claims 15, 18 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1 and 4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Szczerba teaches A system for enhanced outdoor displays via Augmented Reality (AR), the system comprising: one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle; and one or more non-transitory memories storing processor-executable instructions ([0130]).
Claim 20 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Szczerba teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions ([0131]).
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 2-3, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szczerba et al, and further in view of De Moerloose (US 20020050927 A1).
RE claim 2, Szczerba is silent RE: wherein determining, via the one or more processors, the position of the display relative to the electronic device includes identifying one or more outdoor displays proximate to the vehicle.
However De Moerloose teaches determining, via the one or more processors, a position of an outdoor display relative to the vehicle and displaying customized time dependent, contextual information message to the user onto the outdoor display in Fig 1, [0030], [0039]-[0041], [0062]-[0065] utilizing a VCE platform communicating with the user mobile device and the outdoor displays.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Szczerba a system and method of determining, via the one or more processors, a position of an outdoor display relative to the vehicle and overlaying the AR image onto the outdoor display, as set forth above by applying De Moerloose, in order to grab the user’s attention through the outdoor display, wherein Szczerba readily teaches monitoring and alerting the driver over a telecommunications network and utilize other available means [0201]-[0202], and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 3, Szczerba teaches wherein determining, via the one or more processors, the position of the display relative to the electronic device includes obtaining environmental data indicative of an environment proximate to the vehicle (Figs 1-2, 13, [0051]-[0052]).
Szczerba is silent RE: to detect a presence of an outdoor display.
However De Moerloose teaches determining, via the one or more processors, a position of an outdoor display relative to the vehicle and displaying customized time dependent, contextual information message to the user onto the outdoor display in Fig 1, [0030], [0039]-[0041], [0062]-[0065] utilizing a VCE platform communicating with the user mobile device and the outdoor displays.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Szczerba a system and method of detecting a presence of an outdoor display., as set forth above by applying De Moerloose, in order to grab the user’s attention through the outdoor display, wherein Szczerba readily teaches monitoring and alerting the driver over a telecommunications network and utilize other available means [0201]-[0202], and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 16-17 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 2-3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szczerba, and further in view of Hampiholi et al (US 20160267335 A1).
RE claim 5, Szczerba is silent RE: wherein obtaining the contextual data comprises: receiving, from a personal electronic device associated with the occupant, the contextual data. However Hampiholi teaches in Fig 1, [0023]-[0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Szczerba a system and method wherein obtaining the contextual data comprises: receiving, from a personal electronic device associated with the occupant, the contextual data, as suggested by Hampiholi, in order to enhance the contextual information integrating the personal electronic device sensors, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szczerba, and further in view of Zijderveld et al (US 20180143635 A1).
RE claim 5, Szczerba teaches wherein overlaying the occupant-specific image comprises: inputting, via the one or more processors, the contextual data to obtain a condition associated with the occupant (Figs 13, 17, [0116], [0191]-[0198]); and obtaining, from an image database, an image associated with the condition (Figs 33-37, [0199]-[0200], [0203]).
Szczerba is silent RE: a sentiment analysis model.
However Zijderveld teaches in [0037] to determine user’s state/condition information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Szczerba a sentiment analysis model, as suggested by Zijderveld, in order to enhance the user state detection, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 9, Szczerba as modified by Zijderveld teaches wherein: the condition associated with the occupant is drowsiness (Szczerba abstract, Zijderveld [0037] ); and the image associated with the condition includes an indication of a hotel proximate to the vehicle (Szczerba [0154], [0201] wherein the nearby location is a hotel for resting.).
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szczerba, and further in view of Stratvert et al (US 20150278370 A1).
RE claim 10, Szczerba is silent RE: wherein overlaying the occupant-specific image comprises: inputting, via the one or more processors, the contextual data into a natural language processing (NLP) model to obtain a subject relevant to the occupant; and obtaining, from an image database, an image associated with the subject.
However Stratvert teaches in Figs 1-3, [0020], [0026] for facilitating task completion from users contextual information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Szczerba a system and method : wherein overlaying the occupant-specific image comprises: inputting, via the one or more processors, the contextual data into a natural language processing (NLP) model to obtain a subject relevant to the occupant; and obtaining, from an image database, an image associated with the subject, as suggested by Stratvert, in order to facilitate task completion from users contextual information, and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 11, Szczerba as modified by Stratvert teaches wherein: the subject relates to food; and the image associated with the subject includes an indication of a food vendor proximate to the vehicle (Stratvert [0026]).
Claim 19 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 10 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 1/240 F.3d 1/2428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 21/24 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 5-17, 19-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11, 13 and 21 of US Patent # US 12202507 B2.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Present Application
1-3
5-14
15-17, 19
20
US Patent # 12202507
1
2-9, 11
13
21
Table 2 illustrates the conflicting claim pair with mapping, with the differences shown in bold form.
Claim 1 of present App.
Claim 1 of US 12202507 B2
1. A computer-implemented method for enhanced displays via Augmented Reality (AR), the computer-implemented method comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method for enhanced outdoor displays via Augmented Reality (AR), the method comprising:
obtaining, via one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle, contextual data associated with an occupant of the vehicle associated with an AR viewer;
obtaining, via one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle, contextual data associated with an occupant of the vehicle associated with an AR viewer;
determining, via the one or more processors, a position of a display relative to the electronic device;
determining, via the one or more processors, a position of an outdoor display relative to the vehicle;
determining, via the one or more processors, a field of view of the occupant of the vehicle; and
determining, via the one or more processors, a field of view of the occupant of the vehicle; and
based upon the contextual data, the position, and the field of view, presenting, via the one or more processors, an occupant-specific image via the AR viewer.
based upon the contextual data, the position, and the field of view, overlaying, via the one or more processors, an occupant-specific image onto the outdoor display via the AR viewer.
As seen from the table all elements of claim 1 of application are anticipated by Claim 1 of US Patent # 12202507 with slight language variation claiming the same features as an obvious alternative of “determining a position of an outdoor display relative to the vehicle” in the patent with “determining a position of a display relative to the electronic device” in the current application. In addition, “the overlaying onto the outdoor display” is broadened with simply “presenting”.
In addition elements of claims 2-3, 5-14 of the application are anticipated by Claims 1-9, 11 of US Patent # 12202507 as shown in table 1.
Claims 15-17, 19 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations in claims 1-3, and 7 and therefore rejected under same rationale. Additionally claim 13 of Patent #12202507 teaches A system for enhanced outdoor displays via Augmented Reality (AR), the system comprising: one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle; and one or more non-transitory memories storing processor-executable instructions.
Claim 20 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition claim 21 of Patent #12202507 A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See attached 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached on (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights