DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claims 2-3 and 12.
Claims 2-3 and 12 are interpreted under 35 USC 1129f) because they recite generic place holders, a road condition detection unit and a horizontal line setting unit that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. :
Applicant provided the hardware structure for these generic placeholders as CPU as shown in “[0084] As shown in FIG. 7, the motion sickness reducing apparatus 10 includes an ECU (Electronic Control Unit) 30, an inertial sensor 40, an imaging device 50, a navigation device 60, and an interior light 70. [0085] The ECU30 is, for example, a control device including a CPU, a RAM, and a ROM, although not shown. The ECU30 functions as a detection result acquisition unit 31, a vehicle tilt calculation unit 32, a horizontal line display unit 33, and a road condition detection unit 34 when the CPU executes a predetermined program read from the ROM into the RAM. A part or all of these units may be realized by hardware.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bollier et al. ( US patent Publication: 20230013174, “Bollier”).
Regarding claim 1, Bollier teaches, A motion sickness reducing apparatus ( Fig.1 the device is flitted in a vehicle), comprising:
a display device that is provided in a riding space of a vehicle having the riding space in which an individual rides and displays a horizontal line extending in a horizontal direction orthogonal to a gravity direction of the vehicle in the riding space regardless of a tilt of the vehicle. (Refer to Fig.1, A display device have two horizontal display that provides horizontal line in horizontal direction perpendicular to gravitation
“[0071] By suitably driving the light source(s), it is thus possible to align the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 and 14′, 16′ in a horizontal plane A which is always perpendicular to the gravitation vector. Thus, a person seated next to the rear lateral window 13 and behind the front seat 15 and fixing said artificial horizon lines 14, 16 will have the same visual sensations as the driver looking at the road: he will therefore no longer be subject to motion sickness. To achieve this result, the vehicle 10 is advantageously equipped with a triaxial accelerometer configured to detect the accelerations of the vehicle along the 3 axes X, Y and Z and emit corresponding acceleration signals, and a control unit able to receive the acceleration signals emitted by the accelerometer and to drive the light source(s) so that the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 and 14′, 16′ are aligned in a horizontal plane A, perpendicular to the gravitation vector, whatever the accelerations of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 9, Brollier teaches, wherein the display device is a film-shaped film light source.(Fig. 7 and “a first artificial horizon line 14 is formed by the virtual straight line passing through the highest activated light points 17 and 17 "on the first and third light columns 12, 12" respectively, and a second artificial horizon line 16 is formed by the virtual straight line passing through the highest activated light points 17 and 17 'on the first and second light columns 12, 12' respectively. In this configuration, the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 are perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to each other. In an advantageous variant of the invention, each of the light columns 12, 12 'and 12 "may for example comprise a linear array of electronic diodes. vertically aligned troluminescent, each of the light emitting diodes forming one of the light points of the light columns. In another configuration of the invention, the light points can be activated starting from the top of each light column. In this case, the first artificial horizon line 14 will be formed by the virtual line passing through the lowest activated light points on the first and third light columns 12, 12”)
Regarding claim 10, Brollier teaches, wherein the film light source is an organic EL or the film-shaped LED. (.(Fig. 7 and “a first artificial horizon line 14 is formed by the virtual straight line passing through the highest activated light points 17 and 17 "on the first and third light columns 12, 12" respectively, and a second artificial horizon line 16 is formed by the virtual straight line passing through the highest activated light points 17 and 17 'on the first and second light columns 12, 12' respectively. In this configuration, the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 are perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to each other. In an advantageous variant of the invention, each of the light columns 12, 12 'and 12 "may for example comprise a linear array of electronic diodes. vertically aligned troluminescent, each of the light emitting diodes forming one of the light points of the light columns. In another configuration of the invention, the light points can be activated starting from the top of each light column. In this case, the first artificial horizon line 14 will be formed by the virtual line passing through the lowest activated light points on the first and third light columns 12, 12”)
Regarding claim 14, Bollier teaches, wherein the display device is provided on at least a part of a wall surface surrounding four sides of the riding space. (See Fig. 1, The display device is provided on back of front seat and side of the passenger seats,)
Claim 15 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 1 and therefore claim 15 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bollier in view of Park ( US patent Publication: 20220024459, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 2, Bollier teaches the display device displays the horizontal line as shown in claim 1 but doesn’t expressly teach, a road condition detection unit for detecting a road condition where the vehicle is traveling; wherein the display device displays the horizontal line when the road condition satisfies a predetermined condition.
However, Kim teaches, a road condition detection unit for detecting a road condition where the vehicle is traveling; wherein the display device displays state information when the road condition satisfies a predetermined condition (“[0114] The information collector 100 may collect state information of the occupant to check motion sickness state information, detect a curved road, an uphill road, and a downhill road on a travel route of the vehicle, which may affect motion sickness of the occupant, and collect information on road surface states which may affect vehicle vibration.
[0115] The driving display 300 may further include a tactile display 320 provided in seats of the vehicle and configured to allow the occupant to tactually recognize the driving information of the vehicle.”)
Bollier and Kim are analogous as they are from the field of vehicle display for reducing motion sickness.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bollier to have included a road condition detection unit for detecting a road condition where the vehicle is traveling; wherein the display device displays the horizontal line when the road condition satisfies a predetermined condition similar to a road condition detection unit for detecting a road condition where the vehicle is traveling; wherein the display device displays state information when the road condition satisfies a predetermined condition as taught by Kim.
The motivation for the modification is to limit displaying motion sickness information based on condition.
Regarding claim 3, Bollier as modified by Kim teaches, wherein the predetermined condition is a slope, a curved road, or a straight road traveling at a predetermined acceleration force or less. (Kim, “[ 0114] The information collector 100 may collect state information of the occupant to check motion sickness state information, detect a curved road, an uphill road, and a downhill road on a travel route of the vehicle, which may affect motion sickness of the occupant, and collect information on road surface states which may affect vehicle vibration.”)
. The motivation for the modification is to limit displaying motion sickness information based on condition.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bollier in view of Sasayama ( US patent Publication: 20240013501, “Sasayama”).
Regarding claim 5, Bollier teaches, the display device is a side glass constituting a wall surface surrounding the riding space but not teach, the display provided on a windshield
However, Sasayama teaches, the display provided on a windshield ([0023] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing a configuration of a motion sickness regulation device according to a second embodiment and an example of real scenery viewed through a windshield of a vehicle and a motion sickness regulation image displayed on the windshield;”)
Bollier and Sasayama are analogous as they are from the field of vehicle display for reducing motion sickness.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bollier to have included the display provided on a windshield as taught by Kim.
The motivation for the modification is to provide an display to the driver to mitigate motion sickness..
Regarding claim 6. Bollier as modified Sasayama teaches, wherein the display device is further provided on a rear glass constituting the wall surface surrounding the riding space.( Bollier, “[0071] By suitably driving the light source(s), it is thus possible to align the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 and 14′, 16′ in a horizontal plane A which is always perpendicular to the gravitation vector. Thus, a person seated next to the rear lateral window 13 and behind the front seat 15 and fixing said artificial horizon lines 14, 16 will have the same visual sensations as the driver looking at the road: he will therefore no longer be subject to motion sickness. To achieve this result, the vehicle 10 is advantageously equipped with a triaxial accelerometer configured to detect the accelerations of the vehicle along the 3 axes X, Y and Z and emit corresponding acceleration signals, and a control unit able to receive the acceleration signals emitted by the accelerometer and to drive the light source(s) so that the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 and 14′, 16′ are aligned in a horizontal plane A, perpendicular to the gravitation vector, whatever the accelerations of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 13, Bollier teaches, wherein the display device the horizontal line. But doesn’t teach, displays an image including
However, Sasayama teaches, the display device displays an image including ([0023] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing a configuration of a motion sickness regulation device according to a second embodiment and an example of real scenery viewed through a windshield of a vehicle and a motion sickness regulation image displayed on the windshield;”)
Bollier and Sasayama are analogous as they are from the field of vehicle display for reducing motion sickness.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bollier to have the display device to display an image including as taught by Kim.
The motivation for the modification is to provide motion sickness mitigation image to the viewers ..
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bollier in view of Sivak ( US patent Publication: 20170291538, “Sivak”).
Regarding claim 7, Bollier doesn’t expressly teach, the display device is a side door provided in the riding space. ( Bollier, “[0071] By suitably driving the light source(s), it is thus possible to align the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 and 14′, 16′ in a horizontal plane A which is always perpendicular to the gravitation vector. Thus, a person seated next to the rear lateral window 13 and behind the front seat 15 and fixing said artificial horizon lines 14, 16 will have the same visual sensations as the driver looking at the road: he will therefore no longer be subject to motion sickness. To achieve this result, the vehicle 10 is advantageously equipped with a triaxial accelerometer configured to detect the accelerations of the vehicle along the 3 axes X, Y and Z and emit corresponding acceleration signals, and a control unit able to receive the acceleration signals emitted by the accelerometer and to drive the light source(s) so that the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 and 14′, 16′ are aligned in a horizontal plane A, perpendicular to the gravitation vector, whatever the accelerations of the vehicle.”) but doesn’t teach that the display device is on a front dashboard.
Sivak teaches, the display device is on a front dashboard. Presenting such apparent motion and outside reference points in the viewer's peripheral field of view allows them to look away from the outside scene, such as would occur when working on a laptop, reading, playing video games, watching movies, etc., yet still being able to perceive the motion of the vehicle while performing such tasks. Elimination of outside visual motion stimuli, while retaining the motion stimuli within the vestibular system (i.e., the inner ear) is a main contributor to motion sickness. Conversely, retaining or simulating such visual stimuli should help reduce the frequency and severity of motion sickness, as the sensory mismatch (i.e., motion sensed in the vestibular system yet no perceived visual motion) is eliminated.”)
Bollier and Sivak are analogous as they are from the field of vehicle display for reducing motion sickness.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bollier to have included the display provided on a front dashboard as taught by Sivak.
The motivation for the modification is to provide an display to the driver and front passenger to mitigate motion sickness..
Regarding claim 8, Bollier as modified by Sivak teaches, wherein the display device is further provided on a rear dashboard provided in the riding space, ( Bollier, “[0071] By suitably driving the light source(s), it is thus possible to align the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 and 14′, 16′ in a horizontal plane A which is always perpendicular to the gravitation vector. Thus, a person seated next to the rear lateral window 13 and behind the front seat 15 and fixing said artificial horizon lines 14, 16 will have the same visual sensations as the driver looking at the road: he will therefore no longer be subject to motion sickness. To achieve this result, the vehicle 10 is advantageously equipped with a triaxial accelerometer configured to detect the accelerations of the vehicle along the 3 axes X, Y and Z and emit corresponding acceleration signals, and a control unit able to receive the acceleration signals emitted by the accelerometer and to drive the light source(s) so that the first and second artificial horizon lines 14, 16 and 14′, 16′ are aligned in a horizontal plane A, perpendicular to the gravitation vector, whatever the accelerations of the vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 11, Bollier doesn’t expressly teach, wherein the display device is a liquid crystal display installed in the riding space, or a projector for projecting the horizontal line onto a screen installed in the riding space.
However Sivak teaches, wherein the display device is a liquid crystal display installed in the riding space, “[0026] In some embodiments, the present teachings comprises a wearable array of lights or similar visual stimuli (such as LEDs, LCDs, or video displays, mounted on goggles, glasses, hat brims, etc.), or vehicle mounted arrays of lights or similar visual stimuli (mounted in the vehicle interior in such locations as the pillars, headliner, roof, sidewalls, doors, seats, floor, dashboard, console, windows or areas traditionally used as windows, and the like) presented in the viewer's peripheral field of view in such a way as to mimic the specific motion (such as velocity, yaw rate, and/or pitch rate) of the vehicle.”)
Bollier and Sivak are analogous as they are from the field of vehicle display for reducing motion sickness.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bollier to have the display device to be a liquid crystal display installed in the riding space as taught by Sivak.
The motivation for the modification is to provide a standard display..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:.
Claim 4 is objected because the combination of prior art fails to expressly teach, wherein the display device displays a bright spot moving along the horizontal line in a direction corresponding to an acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle together with the horizontal line.
Claims 16-19 are also allowable by virtue of dependency.
Claim 12 is objected because the combination of prior art fails to expressly teach, horizontal line setting unit for setting at least one of a color and width of the horizontal line; wherein the display device displays the horizontal line in the color, and width set.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights