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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract exceeds 150 words and according to Microsoft Word word count the current Abstract is 188 words.. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 14 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation.
Claim 12 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation as follows.
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:
“an image generator configured to” in claim 12;
“an adjustment device configured to” in claim 12; and
“a control unit configured to” in claim 12.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The modifying step in claim 1 is indefinite for at least the following three reasons.
The claimed “which is contact-analogous or oriented on real objects in front of the motor vehicle” does not clearly refer to a previous claim limitation rendering the subject of this claim limitation ambiguous.
The claimed “including at least one predetermined additional change of position, scaling, stroke thickness, luminosity, and/or another display property of the display content,” does not clearly refer to a previous claim limitation rendering the subject of this claim limitation ambiguous.
The claimed “modifying … so that the display content always meets predetermined visibility and recognizability criteria.” is subjective even in light of Applicant written description, refer to paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0024], [0042], and [0046]. The claim limitation “meets predetermined visibility and recognizability criteria” could be met by one user but not another user. Unlimited functional claim limitations Refer to the discussion of "aesthetically pleasing" in MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology [R-01.2024] IV. SUBJECTIVE TERMS. Additionally the claim limitation “modifying … so that the display content always meets predetermined visibility and recognizability criteria.” has no limits. Refer to the discussion of "aesthetically pleasing" in MPEP 2173.05(g) Functional Limitations [R-07.2022]
Dependent claims 1-10 inherit and do not correct these indefinite issues.
Claims 11-14 incorporate the claim limitations of claim 1, thus, these claims inherit and they also do not correct these indefinite issues.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The modifying step in claim 1 is not fully supported by Applicants written description because the claimed “modifying … so that the display content always meets predetermined visibility and recognizability criteria.” is subjective and has no limits even in light of Applicant written description, refer to paragraphs [0016], [0018], [0024], [0042], and [0046].
The claim limitation “meets predetermined visibility and recognizability criteria” could be met by one user but not another user and the specification does not provide support for this, thus, the written description does not convey adequate written support for this claim limitation. Refer to the discussion of "aesthetically pleasing" in MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology [R-01.2024] IV. SUBJECTIVE TERMS.
The claim limitation “meets predetermined visibility and recognizability criteria” is an unlimited functional claim limitation and has no limits. Refer to the discussion of "aesthetically pleasing" in MPEP 2173.05(g) Functional Limitations [R-07.2022].
Dependent claims 1-10 inherit and do not correct these written description issues.
Claims 11-14 incorporate the claim limitations of claim 1, thus, these claims inherit and they also do not correct these written description issues.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Urey et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0317463, describes an augmented reality head up display device (10) with adjustable/steerable eyebox/exit pupil, refer to the abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0115], [0116], [0123], [0128], [0130], and [0195].
Lambert et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0155605, describes when the drivers eyes are above a first vertical level and below a second vertical level adjusting the eyebox level by controlling the motorized seat height adjustment, refer to the Abstract and paragraphs [0009]-[0011] [0020], [0028] and [0030].
Kim, US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0364810, describes a “vehicle head-up display that automatically repositions an eyebox”, refer to the Abstract and paragraphs [0005], [0006], [0024], [0027], and [0043] and FIGs. 1, 2, 4 and 5.
Hardy et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0315352, describes “the position and/or orientation of the first and second imaging mirrors 9, 11 could be adjustable to alter the position of the first and second eyeboxes EYE1, EYE2”, refer to paragraph [0043].
Hickerson et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0299873, describes eyebox adjustment, refer to FIGs. 2-4 and 7 and paragraphs [0021]-[0025] and [0032].
Han et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0266391, describes
a “HUD for a vehicle, which displays HUD information on a windshield of the vehicle while adjusting the level of an eye box (the visual field of a driver) through a software”, refer to paragraph [0007], FIGS. 6 and 8, and paragraphs [0013], [0014], [0023], [0029], [0034], [0036], [0041], [0042], [0055], [0056], [0072], [0073], [0088], and [0090].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A BRIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30am-3:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
JEFFERY A. BRIER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/JEFFERY A BRIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights