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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 19, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. US Patent Publication No. US-20200355917-A1 (hereinafter Ogawa) in view of Stieglitz US Patent Application Publication No. WO-2023015224-A2 (hereinafter Stieglitz) and further in view of Fujita Patent Application Publication No. WO-2015182664-A1 (Fujita).
Regarding claim 1, Ogawa discloses a visual recognition determination system configured to determine visual recognition of a display subject (Ogawa in [0025] discloses, “Specifically, in a present disclosure, the HUD 1 corresponds to a display system. The HUD 1 is mounted on a vehicle, for example. Like a known HUD, the HUD 1 of the present disclosure can display a visual target 2 as shown in FIG. 5”).
Ogawa doesn’t disclose the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Stieglitz discloses when light is emitted from a light source onto a back surface of a panel (Stieglitz in [0164] discloses, “The decorative layer may comprise a rear surface; the light guide may comprise a second portion configured to align with the rear surface of the decorative layer and guide light from a light source to the first portion of the light guide”), in which the display subject is formed (Stieglitz in [0215] discloses, “a component for an interior of a vehicle may comprise a cover/decorative layer with a hole pattern at an exterior surface configured to be illuminated by a light source to present an image”), and the light transmitted through the display subject shows the display subject on a pattern on the panel (Stieglitz in [0216] discloses, “The at least one opening may be configured to transmit illumination from the light source through the cover. The hole pattern may comprise an image for illumination. The hole pattern may be configured so that illumination of the image is visible at a viewing angle”), the pattern serving as a background of the display subject (Stieglitz in [0216]; “prior to providing illumination (e.g., from a light source L through the fill/material F for the hole H), the backlit decorative component product P may be configured to present the general appearance of a wood veneer/surface W in the decorative region DR ... the backlit decorative component product P may be configured to present a desired ornamental design/visual effect (e.g., parallelogram lighting form/pattem segment) in the decorative region DR through the wood veneer/surface W”. The illuminated design appears through and visually together with wood surface serves as the background).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Stieglitz into the system of Ogawa because it would allow the display subject to be integrated into a decorative or patterned panel and user could make it visible when it is needed.
Ogawa and Stieglitz in the combination don’t disclose the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Fujita discloses the visual recognition determination system comprising: a determination unit that determines the visual recognition of the display subject (Fujita in [Page – 7, Paragraph – 3] discloses, “the angle θ between the polarization direction L2 of the display 3 and the extending direction L3 of the groove 5d is within the range of [75 ° ≦ θ ≦ 105 °] (preferably [85 ° ≦ θ ≦ 95 °]), the luminance ratio of the area of the symbol 5c with respect to the area around the symbol 5c falls within the predetermined luminance ratio range, so that the symbol 5c can be maintained in a state in which it is difficult to visually recognize... if the luminance ratio of the area of the symbol 5c to the area around the symbol 5c is within the predetermined luminance ratio range, the area of the symbol 5c becomes less conspicuous than the area around the symbol 5c”) based on a feature representing a clarity of the pattern on the panel (Fujita in [Page – 7, Paragraph – 1] discloses, “the luminance ratio of the area of the symbol 5c to the area around the symbol 5c is typically represented by “luminance of the area of symbol 5c / luminance of the area around symbol 5c × 100 [%]”. it can. The luminance ratio of the area of the symbol 5c to the area around the symbol 5c represents that the luminance of the area around the symbol 5c is equal to the luminance of the area of the symbol 5c when the luminance ratio is 100%. The smaller the luminance ratio is, the larger the luminance difference between the area around the symbol 5c and the symbol 5c is”. The luminance ratio equates to feature representation and luminance difference implies to feature representation clarity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Fujita into the system of Ogawa in view of Stieglitz because it would allow the system to determine more accurate visibility determination.
Summary of Citations (Fujita)
[Page – 7, Paragraph – 1]; “the luminance ratio of the area of the symbol 5c to the area around the symbol 5c is typically represented by “luminance of the area of symbol 5c / luminance of the area around symbol 5c × 100 [%]”. it can. The luminance ratio of the area of the symbol 5c to the area around the symbol 5c represents that the luminance of the area around the symbol 5c is equal to the luminance of the area of the symbol 5c when the luminance ratio is 100%. The smaller the luminance ratio is, the larger the luminance difference between the area around the symbol 5c and the symbol 5c is”.
[Page – 7, Paragraph – 3]; “the angle θ between the polarization direction L2 of the display 3 and the extending direction L3 of the groove 5d is within the range of [75 ° ≦ θ ≦ 105 °] (preferably [85 ° ≦ θ ≦ 95 °]), the luminance ratio of the area of the symbol 5c with respect to the area around the symbol 5c falls within the predetermined luminance ratio range, so that the symbol 5c can be maintained in a state in which it is difficult to visually recognize... if the luminance ratio of the area of the symbol 5c to the area around the symbol 5c is within the predetermined luminance ratio range, the area of the symbol 5c becomes less conspicuous than the area around the symbol 5c”.
Summary of Citations (Stieglitz)
Paragraph [0164]; “The decorative layer may comprise a rear surface; the light guide may comprise a second portion configured to align with the rear surface of the decorative layer and guide light from a light source to the first portion of the light guide”.
Paragraph [0215]; “a component for an interior of a vehicle may comprise a cover/decorative layer with a hole pattern at an exterior surface configured to be illuminated by a light source to present an image”.
Paragraph [0216]; “The at least one opening may be configured to transmit illumination from the light source through the cover. The hole pattern may comprise an image for illumination. The hole pattern may be configured so that illumination of the image is visible at a viewing angle”.
Paragraph [0216]; “prior to providing illumination (e.g., from a light source L through the fill/material F for the hole H), the backlit decorative component product P may be configured to present the general appearance of a wood veneer/surface W in the decorative region DR ... the backlit decorative component product P may be configured to present a desired ornamental design/visual effect (e.g., parallelogram lighting form/pattem segment) in the decorative region DR through the wood veneer/surface W”.
Summary of Citations (Ogawa)
Paragraph [0025]; “Specifically, in a present disclosure, the HUD 1 corresponds to a display system. The HUD 1 is mounted on a vehicle, for example. Like a known HUD, the HUD 1 of the present disclosure can display a visual target 2 as shown in FIG. 5”.
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa in the combination discloses the visual recognition determination system according to claim 1, wherein the feature representing the clarity of the pattern on the panel is obtained from an average brightness of the panel and a standard deviation of the brightness of the panel (Ogawa in [0046] discloses, “Further, in step 3, the standardization unit 17 standardizes the luminance value L1 to L11 using the below described fourth expression, wherein k is a natural number of from 1 to 11, Lσ is a standard deviation of each of luminance values of from L1 to L11, and Lm is an average value of the luminance values of from L1 to L11. Here, these luminance values of from L1 to L10 are luminance data stored in the storage unit 5. Further, as described earlier, the luminance value L11 is the luminance value obtained in step 1”).
Summary of Citations (Ogawa)
Paragraph [0046]; “Further, in step 3, the standardization unit 17 standardizes the luminance value L1 to L11 using the below described fourth expression, wherein k is a natural number of from 1 to 11, Lσ is a standard deviation of each of luminance values of from L1 to L11, and Lm is an average value of the luminance values of from L1 to L11. Here, these luminance values of from L1 to L10 are luminance data stored in the storage unit 5. Further, as described earlier, the luminance value L11 is the luminance value obtained in step 1”.
Regarding claim 7, Ogawa in the combination discloses visual recognition determination system according to claim 1, wherein: the determination unit substitutes the feature representing the clarity of the pattern on the panel into a determination equation, the determination equation being used for determining the visual recognition of the display device, to obtain a determination value; and the determination unit determines the visual recognition of the display subject based on the determination value (Ogawa in [0042 – 0043] discloses, “The third expression is an approximate expression in that a size X approaches a size X 1 j of a visual target when a visual target contrast I 1 j is substituted for an element I. That is, the third expression is calculated based on the size X 1 j of a visual target and the visual target contrast I 1 j each stored in the storage unit 5 using regression analysis. Hence, the third expression corresponds to an expression defining a relation between a visual target contrast Iα [alpha] and a size of a visual target 2 as described later more in detail. Further, in the storage unit 5, data R2 representing a matching rate at which a size X 1 j of a visual target and a visual target contrast I 1 j meets the third expression is stored, wherein the data R2 is herein below referred to as a determination coefficient”).
Summary of Citations (Ogawa)
Paragraph [0042 – 0043]; “The third expression is an approximate expression in that a size X approaches a size X 1 j of a visual target when a visual target contrast I 1 j is substituted for an element I. That is, the third expression is calculated based on the size X 1 j of a visual target and the visual target contrast I 1 j each stored in the storage unit 5 using regression analysis. Hence, the third expression corresponds to an expression defining a relation between a visual target contrast Iα [alpha] and a size of a visual target 2 as described later more in detail. Further, in the storage unit 5, data R2 representing a matching rate at which a size X 1 j of a visual target and a visual target contrast I 1 j meets the third expression is stored, wherein the data R2 is herein below referred to as a determination coefficient”.
Regarding claim 8, Ogawa in the combination discloses the visual recognition determination system according to claim 7, wherein the determination equation is an equation that uses logistic regression analysis for predicting whether the visual recognition will be satisfactory through regression analysis of multiple explanatory variables (Ogawa in [0042 – 0043] discloses, “The third expression is an approximate expression in that a size X approaches a size X 1 j of a visual target when a visual target contrast I 1 j is substituted for an element I. That is, the third expression is calculated based on the size X 1 j of a visual target and the visual target contrast I 1 j each stored in the storage unit 5 using regression analysis. Hence, the third expression corresponds to an expression defining a relation between a visual target contrast Iα [alpha] and a size of a visual target 2 as described later more in detail. Further, in the storage unit 5, data R2 representing a matching rate at which a size X 1 j of a visual target and a visual target contrast I 1 j meets the third expression is stored, wherein the data R2 is herein below referred to as a determination coefficient”).
Summary of Citations (Ogawa)
Paragraph [0042 – 0043]; “The third expression is an approximate expression in that a size X approaches a size X 1 j of a visual target when a visual target contrast I 1 j is substituted for an element I. That is, the third expression is calculated based on the size X 1 j of a visual target and the visual target contrast I 1 j each stored in the storage unit 5 using regression analysis. Hence, the third expression corresponds to an expression defining a relation between a visual target contrast Iα [alpha] and a size of a visual target 2 as described later more in detail. Further, in the storage unit 5, data R2 representing a matching rate at which a size X 1 j of a visual target and a visual target contrast I 1 j meets the third expression is stored, wherein the data R2 is herein below referred to as a determination coefficient”.
Regarding claim 9, method claim 9 corresponds to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, the rejection analysis of claim 1 is applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim
corresponds to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, the rejection analysis of claim 1 is applied in claim 10.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Stieglitz and Fujita and further in view of Guo Patent Application Publication No. CN-114845059-A (Guo).
Regarding claim 3, Ogawa in the combination discloses the visual recognition determination system according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines the visual recognition of the display subject using (Ogawa in [0049] discloses, “a distance in the color space between the standardized visual target 2 and the standardized data D1 is herein below referred to as a visual target contrast Iα (alpha) between the visual target 2 and the background 4. Hence, calculation of the visual target contrast Iα [alpha] corresponds to evaluation of visibility of the visual target 2 relative to the background 4”), in addition to the clarity of the pattern on the panel, at least one of a clarity of the display subject (Ogawa in [0023] discloses, “To appropriately adjust the size of the display of the visual target, it is necessary to calculate a contrast of a visual target to a background (i.e., a visibility indication), indicating visibility of the visual target”), and a chromaticity difference between the panel and the display subject (Ogawa in [0071] discloses, “chromaticity values of the background thereof based on data composed of standardized luminance values and chromaticity values; and calculating a distance in a color space between the evaluation target and the background thereof based on the standardized luminance values and the standardized chromaticity values of the evaluation target and the standardized luminance and chromaticity values of the background thereof” wherein ‘and calculating a distance in a color space between the evaluation target and the background’ equates to calculating the difference).
Ogawa, Stieglitz and Fujita in the combination don’t disclose the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Guo discloses a mark visual angle representing a size of the display subject (Guo in [Page – 23, Paragraph – 8] discloses, “the zoom ratio can represent the change degree of the viewing angle and the size change of the subject in the image (i.e., the image displayed by the display screen of the electronic device)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Guo into the system of Ogawa in view of Stieglitz and Fujita because it would allow the system to determine how large it actually appears to the viewer and judge more accurately whether the display subject can actually be seen and recognized.
Summary of Citations (Guo)
[Page – 23, Paragraph – 8]; “the zoom ratio can represent the change degree of the viewing angle and the size change of the subject in the image (i.e., the image displayed by the display screen of the electronic device)”.
Summary of Citations (Ogawa)
Paragraph [0023]; “To appropriately adjust the size of the display of the visual target, it is necessary to calculate a contrast of a visual target to a background (i.e., a visibility indication), indicating visibility of the visual target”.
Paragraph [0049]; “a distance in the color space between the standardized visual target 2 and the standardized data D1 is herein below referred to as a visual target contrast Iα (alpha) between the visual target 2 and the background 4. Hence, calculation of the visual target contrast Iα [alpha] corresponds to evaluation of visibility of the visual target 2 relative to the background 4”.
Paragraph [0071]; “chromaticity values of the background thereof based on data composed of standardized luminance values and chromaticity values; and calculating a distance in a color space between the evaluation target and the background thereof based on the standardized luminance values and the standardized chromaticity values of the evaluation target and the standardized luminance and chromaticity values of the background thereof”.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Stieglitz and Fujita and further in view of Yokoi Patent Application Publication No. WO-2021054222-A1 (Yokoi).
Regarding claim 4, Ogawa in the combination discloses the visual recognition determination system according to claim 1, further comprising: in accordance with a determination result of the determination unit (Ogawa in [0023] discloses, “To appropriately adjust the size of the display of the visual target, it is necessary to calculate a contrast of a visual target to a background (i.e., a visibility indication), indicating visibility of the visual target”).
Ogawa, Stieglitz and Fujita in the combination don’t disclose the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Yokoi discloses an adjustment unit (Yokoi in [Page – 16, Paragraph – 7] discloses, “the display control device 219 can control the reflectance of the reflector 217 and the brightness of the display 215”) that adjusts an operational state of the light source (Yokoi in [Page – 15, Paragraph – 7] discloses, “The microcomputer 231 controls the brightness of the LED itself when the display 215 is an LED, and controls the brightness of the backlight when the display 215 is a liquid crystal display”) so that the visual recognition of the display subject is improved (Yokoi in [Page – 18, Paragraph – 3] discloses, “the brightness of the displayed image is sufficiently maintained, so that the visibility of the displayed image is improved”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Yokoi into the system of Ogawa in view of Stieglitz and Fujita because when poor visibility is detected the system can automatically respond by changing the light source to improve that visibility.
Summary of Citations (Yokoi)
[Page – 15, Paragraph – 7]; “The microcomputer 231 controls the brightness of the LED itself when the display 215 is an LED, and controls the brightness of the backlight when the display 215 is a liquid crystal display”.
[Page – 16, Paragraph – 7]; “the display control device 219 can control the reflectance of the reflector 217 and the brightness of the display 215”.
[Page – 18, Paragraph – 3]; “the brightness of the displayed image is sufficiently maintained, so that the visibility of the displayed image is improved”.
Summary of Citations (Ogawa)
Paragraph [0023]; “To appropriately adjust the size of the display of the visual target, it is necessary to calculate a contrast of a visual target to a background (i.e., a visibility indication), indicating visibility of the visual target”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Stieglitz and Fujita and further in view of Masatsugu Patent Application Publication No. US-20230271502-A1 (Masatsugu).
Regarding claim 5, Ogawa in the combination discloses the visual recognition determination system according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines the visual recognition of the display subject (Ogawa in [0023] discloses, “To appropriately adjust the size of the display of the visual target, it is necessary to calculate a contrast of a visual target to a background (i.e., a visibility indication), indicating visibility of the visual target”).
Ogawa, Stieglitz and Fujita in the combination don’t disclose the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Masatsugu discloses at an actual attachment counterpart of the display device that shows the display subject on the panel (Masatsugu in [0094] discloses, “A lighting device of embodiment 1 forms a part of a center console box provided in a vehicle compartment, and a display panel of the lighting device forms a part of an upper panel of the center console box”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Masatsugu into the system of Ogawa in view of Stieglitz and Fujita because it would allow the system to optimize the display for that installation location.
Summary of Citations (Masatsugu)
Paragraph [0094]; “A lighting device of embodiment 1 forms a part of a center console box provided in a vehicle compartment, and a display panel of the lighting device forms a part of an upper panel of the center console box”.
Summary of Citations (Ogawa)
Paragraph [0023]; “To appropriately adjust the size of the display of the visual target, it is necessary to calculate a contrast of a visual target to a background (i.e., a visibility indication), indicating visibility of the visual target”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Stieglitz and Fujita and further in view of Takahashi Patent Application Publication No. US-20160098032-A1 (Takahashi).
Regarding claim 6, Ogawa in the combination discloses the visual recognition determination system according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines the visual recognition of the display subject (Ogawa in [0023] discloses, “To appropriately adjust the size of the display of the visual target, it is necessary to calculate a contrast of a visual target to a background (i.e., a visibility indication), indicating visibility of the visual target”).
Ogawa, Stieglitz and Fujita in the combination don’t disclose the following limitation as further recited in the claim.
Takahashi discloses using an optical simulator that illuminates the display subject in a virtual space (Takahashi in [0090] discloses about a simulator, “The simulator 304 executes a simulation described below in the environment of the virtual device 310. For example, the simulator 304 executes an optical simulation about the light that the illumination 312 produces and calculates a picture representing what the imaging unit 311 would see in its field of view”. Furthermore, Takahashi in [0035] discloses about virtual space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the technique of Takahashi into the system of Ogawa in view of Stieglitz and Fujita because it would allow to test many viewing environment in advance in a simulated optical environment before the display device is physically manufactured or installed.
Summary of Citations (Takahashi)
Paragraph [0035]; “the calculation unit 22 produces an object OBJ in a virtual space to represent the aforementioned object used in the real device 10. The calculation unit 22 also produces a detector 24 in the virtual space to represent the aforementioned detector used in the real device 10. The calculation unit 22 further produces a source 25 in the virtual space to represent the aforementioned source used in the real device 10 ... the calculation unit 22 is designed to reproduce a real device 10 in a virtual space by using its three-dimensional data (e.g., 3D CAD data)”.
Paragraph [0090]; “The simulator 304 executes a simulation described below in the environment of the virtual device 310. For example, the simulator 304 executes an optical simulation about the light that the illumination 312 produces and calculates a picture representing what the imaging unit 311 would see in its field of view”.
Summary of Citations (Ogawa)
Paragraph [0023]; “To appropriately adjust the size of the display of the visual target, it is necessary to calculate a contrast of a visual target to a background (i.e., a visibility indication), indicating visibility of the visual target”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH whose telephone number is (703)756-1684.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET. 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, Vu Le can be
reached on (571)272-7332. 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.
/ZAID MUHAMMAD SALEH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2668
09/19/2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights