CTNF 18/994,979 CTNF 92048 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “POI” in claim 1 should be amended and written out to indicate what “POI” refers to. The examiner checked the specification, which states that “POI” is “Point of Interest” (as opposed to “Person of Interest” or something else), to minimize confusion and/or misunderstanding of claim terminology when reading the claim . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 recites, in part: when the number of recognizable objects within the traveling image is smaller than the traveling image, a rendering update is performed in such a manner than digital signage within the traveling image is not displayed This language is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear what or how the “number of recognizable objects within the traveling image is smaller than the traveling image”. Is this a case where the traveling image (what is displayed) is at least somewhat larger than the objects displayed in the image? When would they be equal or larger? When the entire display is wall-to-wall objects with zero background? But even then, the claim recites “the number” and not the image size, or image features. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the above portion of claim 14 that the metric is a number of objects in the traveling image, and based on that number, a rendering update is performed. Clarification and correction are respectfully required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (EP 3507125 B1; cited in Applicant’s IDS) in view of Lim (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2024/0144612 A1) . Regarding claim 1: Kim teaches: an AR signage display apparatus operating in conjunction with a vehicle (claim 1, vehicle user interface apparatus) , the apparatus comprising: a communication module (Fig. 8: 245 interface) that communicates with the vehicle (para. 225-28) and a cloud server (para. 252, interface can communicate with a server to receive POI information) …; an output module (Fig. 8: 250 output unit) that displays a traveling image of the vehicle (e.g. Fig. 6 is one example traveling image) , which is acquired through a vision sensor (Fig. 7: 310 camera, 320 radar and/or 330 lidar) ; and a processor (Fig. 8: 270 processor) that receives sensing data of the vehicle through the communication module (receives data from Fig. 7: 300 and/or 120) , …displaying, as digital signage, content for neighboring a POI determined on the basis of a location of the vehicle and the sensing data of the vehicle (e.g. paras. 233-255, many example of displaying content for a neighboring POI, Id. and in combination with para, 273-94, many examples of based on location and sensing data of vehicle) , and renders the digital signage onto a display region within the traveling image on the basis of the AR signage data (see mapping above for displaying function, and/or Fig. 11) …, wherein the processor recognizes the occurrence of a situation requiring a driver to keep their eyes forward based on traveling environmental information collected while the vehicle travels and on the sensing data of the vehicle, and corrects matched AR signage data in such a manner that a region related to the traveling environment information is not hidden from view, based on the recognition of the situation requiring the driver to keep their eyes forward (e.g. para. 468, information on whether the vehicle is stand-still, and info on vehicle speed. As the vehicle is moving, this is an occurrence of a situation for the driver to keep eyes forward. Paras. 470-75, Fig 23a, signage data, info is not hidden) . Regarding: a cloud server providing an AR signage platform service…makes a request to the cloud server for AR signage data for displaying, as digital signage, content for neighboring a POI determined on the basis of a location of the vehicle and the sensing data of the vehicle…renders the digital signage… on the basis of the AR signage data corresponding to the request, consider the following. Kim teaches that its apparatus is in various communication with a server (e.g. cloud server), as mapped above, and e.g. para. 252, receiving info on an POI from a server. Likewise, in analogous art, Lim teaches an AR service platform (see e.g. Brief Summary, claim 1 and Fig. 4, AR service system) (corresponding to Applicant’s claimed AR signage platform service), that users (vehicles) can make requests for signage data related to POIs (e.g. paras. 24-30). Moreover, the examiner takes official notice of the existence of cloud servers, and that Lim teaches an AR service platform using servers, related to customer demand for in vehicle navigation services (see Technical Field and Background), it would have been obvious to implement a cloud server, which can be accessed remotely (i.e. by driers of vehicles demanding services), as opposed to a traditional physical server, limited by physical capacity and accessibility. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim to implement the service platform of Lim, both references relevant to in-vehicle services, and POIs, as mapped above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2: Kim and/or Lim teach: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the situation requiring the driver to keep their eyes forward is one of the following: detection of objects overlapping within the traveling image or of an object approaching within the traveling image, detection of an increase in a traveling speed of the vehicle or of the traveling speed reaching or exceeding a reference speed (Kim, paras. 470-73) (Lim, para. 54) , detection of a traffic congestion situation in the vicinity of the vehicle, detection of a pedestrian protection region (Lim, para. 54) , entering of a speed restriction region by the vehicle (Lim, para. 54) , or occurrence of a decrease in visible distance based on road information or weather information. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to optimize vehicle assistance based on surrounding conditions. Regarding claim 3: Kim and/or Lim teach: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the traveling environmental information includes one or more of the following: the road information, road situation information, the weather information, or school zone information (Kim, road info, road situation info, para. 435) (Lim, road info, road situation info, paras.37,48) , and wherein the sensing data of the vehicle include one or more of the following: the vehicle's ADAS sensing data (Lim, para. 33) , speed data (Kim, mapped in claim 2) , destination data (Kim, para. 203) , or V2X detection data (Kim, para. 132) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to optimize vehicle assistance based on surrounding conditions. Regarding claim 4: Kim and/or Lim teach: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor determines the technique of correcting AR signage data matched with a region related to the traveling environmental information of the vehicle in a manner that varies depending on a traveling speed of the vehicle, based on detection of objects overlapping within the traveling image of the vehicle or an object approaching within the traveling image (e.g. Kim, paras. 468-72, manner that varies based on traveling speed, based on detection of objects or object approaching (Kim, 197, 289-93, 455)) (Lim, paras. 12-14, 38, 48). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). Both references teach/suggest the above features of Applicant’s claim 4, as mapped above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 5: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 4, wherein, in a state where the traveling speed of the vehicle exceeds a reference speed (e.g. Lim, para. 54, warnings for overspeed) , based on the detection of objects overlapping within the traveling image of the vehicle or an object approaching within the traveling image (object detection mapped in claim 4 in both Kim and Lim) , the processor corrects matched AR signage data in such a manner that the digital signage is not displayed in a display region in the vicinity of a region in which the object is detected (Kim, para. 474, remove info on POI (digital signage) and display graphic object alone) , and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). The prior art included each element recited in claim 5, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 6: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, based on the recognition of a region including a fixed structure due to the occurrence of the situation requiring the driver to keep their eyes forward, the processor corrects matched AR signage data in such a manner that the AR digital signage is displayed in a manner that avoids the region including the fixed structure, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). Kim, para, 474, when vehicle is traveling at higher speed (keep eyes forward), remove information on POI (this teaches avoiding the region, and the POI can be a fixed structure (see para. 91, 237). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predicable to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 7: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 6, wherein, based on story-level information of a display region matched with the region including the fixed structure, the processor performs a rendering update in such a manner as to vary at least one of the following: the transparency, location, size, or shape of AR digital signage for the display region corresponding to the relevant story level, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). Lim teaches object detection and classification that can detect/classify buildings, which are fixed structures that can have stories (paras. 53, 74). Kim teaches varied transparency, location, size or shape of signage corresponding to relevant story level, see Fig. 12. The prior art included each element recited in claim 7, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 8: Kim teaches: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, based on the recognition of the situation requiring the driver to keep their eyes forward (paras. 470-76, vehicle changes from stand still to driving at low or faster speeds) , the processor corrects the AR signage data in such a manner as to change the overall reference location of the display region included within the traveling image (para. 423-26, moving speed of graphic objects changes as vehicle distance changes. This teaches changing overall reference location of display region, as it is corrected or moved or changed, based on vehicle speed or movement) . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, motivated to optimize vehicle assistance based on surrounding conditions and driver behavior. Regarding claim 9: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, based on the recognition of the situation requiring the driver to keep their eyes forward, the processor corrects matched AR signage data in such a manner that the display region included in the traveling image or the maximum of digital signage pieces displayed in the display region varies depending on a traveling speed of the vehicle, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). Lim teaches that it is known to correct AR data such that the display region, or maximum pieces displayed, varies depending on traveling speed of vehicle (para. 54, customized warnings based on speed). Kim also teaches this (para. 423, the moving speed of graphic objects varies depending on speed of vehicle. See also para. 458, a collision warning is corrected signage data depending on travelling speed and 471-75). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predicable to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 15: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, while the vehicle is located within a speed limit region based on the traveling environmental information, or in a case where a dangerous situation is detected based on the sensing data of the vehicle (Kim, para. 474) or (Lim, para. 54) , the processor controls a display in such a manner that the digital signage displayed in the display region within the traveling image is no longer displayed on the display (Kim, para. 474) . Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predicable to one of ordinary skill, as mapped above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lim and further in view of Lee (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0311323 A1) . Regarding claim 10: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 9, wherein the higher the traveling speed of the vehicle, the smaller the maximum number of digital signage pieces displayed in the display region, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). Lee teaches vehicle displays, various driving conditions and/or modes (as do Kim and Lim), and that, in para. 96, provides the following teaching, suggestion and motivation: PNG media_image1.png 182 536 media_image1.png Greyscale Lee also teaches controlling the total area of a variety of information displayed, such to excessive size or amount of information (para. 158). When that happens, “the field of vision of the driver may be obscured or the attention of the driver may be deteriorated.” (para. 158). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that the higher the speed of the vehicle (all three references teach speed of vehicle, as mapped in Kim and Lim throughout this office action; for Lee, see 108-110), the smaller the maximum number of signage (i.e. amount changes, per Lee), is all of taught, suggested and motivated by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predicable to one of ordinary skill, as mapped above. Additional motivation would be to provide drivers with minimal visual distraction to promote safer driving. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 11: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, based on the recognition of the situation requiring the drive to keep their eyes forward (see mapping to claim 1) , the processor corrects the AR signage data in such a manner that the degree to which the AR digital signage is display-restricted varies depending on a distance over which the display region within the traveling image is close to the current location of the vehicle, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). Lee teaches that varying the degree to which objects (i.e. AR digital signage) is displayed can vary (paras. 96, 158). Varying the degree of display-restriction depending on a distance as claimed, would have been obvious and predicable to one of ordinary skill, as mapped above. Additional motivation would be to provide drivers with minimal visual distraction to promote safer driving, and to avoid obscuring field of vision of driver or attention deterioration (Lee, para. 158). One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 12: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 11, wherein the processor performs a rendering update in such a manner that the closer the display region within the traveling image is to the current location of the vehicle, the greater the degree to which the AR digital signage is display-restricted, and corrects matched AR signage data in such a manner that the greater the degree to which the AR digital signage is display-restricted, the smaller a size value of the digital signage or the greater a transparency value of the digital signage, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). Kim teaches various rendering updates based on vehicle information, including display restriction (e.g. paras. 415-32, 468-75, Fig. 12, and claim 3); Lee as well (para. 96), and display restriction (Lee, paras. 96, 158). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that the greater the display restriction, per either Kim or Lee, a smaller a size or greater transparency (Kim, e.g. Fig. 12) (Lee, para. 96), is all of taught, suggested and motivated by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predicable to one of ordinary skill, as mapped above. Additional motivation would be to provide drivers with minimal visual distraction to promote safer driving. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 13: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 1, wherein, based on the occurrence of a situation where a visible distance is reduced on the basis of road information of the vehicle or weather information (Lee, 167-70, weather information, road information) , the processor determines whether or not a display-restricted region of the digital signage is expanded (Lee, para. 96, 158) , depending on the result of detecting the number of objects recognizable within the traveling image (Id., detected number of objects includes route, position and accident information in Lee. See also Lee, para. 166, number of obstacles. Alternatively, both Kim (paras. 53, 74) and Lim teach object detection, as mapped in claim 1) , and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 14: It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the AR signage display apparatus of claim 13, wherein, in the situation where the visible distance is reduced (e.g. Lee, para. 170, weather information reduces visibility) , when the number of recognizable objects within the traveling image is equal to or greater than a reference value (Lee, para. 158, amount of information displayed as “recognizable objects within the traveling image”; Applicant’s spec at [0055] defines “traveling image” as that of an image output through a display) , the transparency of digital signage in a display region close to the current location of the vehicle is increased (Lee, pars. 96, 418) , and, when the number of recognizable objects within the traveling image is smaller than the traveling image, a rendering update is performed in such a manner than digital signage within the traveling image is not displayed (Kim teaches not displaying signage in certain instances, para. 475, in combination with Lee, para. 96, motivation and teaching to modify display parameter) , and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). The prior art included each element recited in claim 14, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as mapped and described above. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-20190011918-A1: A driving system for a vehicle which includes: an input unit; an interface configured to acquire vehicle driving information and to acquire information from one or more devices provided in the vehicle; and a computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to perform operations that include, inter alia , displaying, through a display of the vehicle, a screen configured to receive a user selection among the one or more recommended POIs; and setting the destination of the vehicle according to the received user selection. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST. 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. Sarah Lhymn Primary Examiner Art Unit 2613 /Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 2 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 4 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 5 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 6 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 7 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 8 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 9 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 10 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 11 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 12 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 13 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 14 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 15 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 16 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 17 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 18 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 19 Art Unit: 2613 Application/Control Number: 18/994,979 Page 20 Art Unit: 2613
Prosecution Insights