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 .
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) 1-7, 9-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekelund et al. (US-20230391261-A1) in view of Hershkovitz (US-20180326999-A1) and in further view of Jerg (US-20250042425-A1) .
Regarding claim 1, EKELUND teaches A system, comprising:a processor; and a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (Para. 57-59: processer 102, memory 101, display 10a and 10b and camera 5a): detect, through analysis of input data ( Para. 59-73: processing circuitry analyzes camera/sensor input and detects impaired visibility or substances on the window), a dynamic condition pertaining to one of a vehicle and an environment external to the vehicle ( para 59-74: detects impaired visibility caused by rain, mud, snow, dust., affecting the drivers view of the external environment ); and display, to an occupant of the vehicle (Para.59-74: display 10a/10b presents the camera image to the vehicle occupant. Para.61, 67, 73: allows the occupant to detect obstacles and avoid unsafe traffic situations), but fails to teach an animated metaphorical graphical representation of the status, in real time, of the dynamic condition to assist the occupant of the vehicle in engaging with the dynamic condition.
Hershkovitz teaches an representation of the status, in real time, of the dynamic condition to assist the occupant of the vehicle in engaging with the dynamic condition ( Para. 134-143: dynamic vst/vur windows that move, resize, and update based on head movement and user commands. 192-204: teaches multiple presentation modes where the displayed graphics change in response to driving events. Figs 18a-19c illustrate different animated display behaviors. 201-203: switching between different display modes and dynamically changing the size and position of the vst/vur windows. It would have been obvious to use the virtual graphical representation techniques of Hershkovitz in the system of EKELUND because such graphical representations provide users with a more intuitive and informative way to convey information, thereby improving the effectiveness of the user interface.).
Jerg teaches animated metaphorical graphical representation (Para. 14-24 and 48:teaches that the graphical representation may be animated, nonliteral avatar whose actions and animation characteristics vary based on the detected condition and its urgency. It would have been obvious to incorporate Jerg’s animated, condition dependent avatar representations into the vehicle warning display of Ekelund and Hershkovitz to communicate detected vehicle or environmental conditions and their changing urgency more intuitively, thereby improving the occupant’s perception and understanding of the displayed information.).
Regarding claim 2, EKELUND in view of Hershkovitz and Jerg teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the input data includes one or more of input from the vehicle occupant, vehicle sensor data, environment sensor data, data from a remote server, physiological data pertaining to the vehicle occupant, vehicle-occupant facial-expression data, vehicle-occupant gaze-tracking data, vehicle-occupant preferences data, and historical driving data pertaining to the vehicle (Hershkovitz, Para 93-95, 98-103: the system monitors occupant activities using cameras, motion sensors, radar, and other occupant facing sensors to determine the occupant state).
Regarding claim 3, EKELUND in view of Hershkovitz and Jerg teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the dynamic condition pertains to an operational state of the vehicle ( EKELUND, Para 3-5, 13, 59-67 and claim 1: the processing circuitry monitors conditions associated with vehicle operation, including impaired visibility, windshield washer activation/inactivation, detection of substances on the windshield, and related driving conditions.).
Regarding claim 4, EKELUND in view of Hershkovitz and Jerg teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the dynamic condition pertains to at least one of traffic, terrain, weather, and time of day (EKELUND, Para 3-5, 9-12, 45, 59-74:The system detects impaired visibility caused by environmental conditions such as water, rain, snow, slush, mud, dust, and other substances on the windshield while driving. These are weather/environmental conditions that dynamically affect vehicle operation).
Regarding claim 5, EKELUND in view of Hershkovitz and Jerg teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the dynamic condition pertains to a roadway on which the vehicle is traveling (EKELUND, Para 3-5, 9-12, 45, 59-74:The system detects impaired visibility of the roadway ahead caused by conditions such as water, rain, snow, slush, mud, dust, and other substances on the windshield while driving. These are weather/environmental conditions that dynamically affect vehicle operation).
Regarding claim 6, EKELUND in view of Hershkovitz and Jerg teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the dynamic condition pertains to an external road user (EKELUND, Para 3-5, 9-12, 45, 59-74: The system detects impaired visibility and displays the surroundings so the occupant can detect objects in front of the vehicle and avoid an undesirable traffic situation. A person of ordinary art would understand that these objects include external road users such as other vehicles and etc).
Regarding claim 7, EKELUND in view of Hershkovitz and Jerg teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions to display, to the occupant of the vehicle, the animated metaphorical graphical representation include instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to display the animated metaphorical graphical representation on at least one of: one or more displays of an In-Vehicle Information System of the vehicle;a tablet computer removably mounted to a back side of a seat of the vehicle;a head-up display (HUD) in the vehicle that is separate from windows of the vehicle;a HUD that occupies at least a portion of a window of the vehicle;a rearview mirror of the vehicle; and a side mirror of the vehicle ( Hershkovitz, para 36-44, 95-98: teaches dynamic graphical visual warnings presentation that supplement EKELUND. EKELUND, Para 54-59, and 61-62: the system displays the surroundings on display 10a/10b including a dashboard display and a head up display inside the vehicle) .
Regarding claim 9, EKELUND teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: detect, through analysis of input data( Para. 59-73: processing circuitry analyzes camera/sensor input and detects impaired visibility or substances on the window), a dynamic condition pertaining to one of a vehicle and an environment external to the vehicle ( para 59-74: detects impaired visibility caused by rain, mud, snow, dust., affecting the drivers view of the external environment ); and display, to an occupant of the vehicle (Para.59-74: display 10a/10b presents the camera image to the vehicle occupant. Para.61, 67, 73: allows the occupant to detect obstacles and avoid unsafe traffic situations), but fails to teach an animated metaphorical graphical representation of the status, in real time, of the dynamic condition to assist the occupant of the vehicle in engaging with the dynamic condition.
Hershkovitz teaches an representation of the status, in real time, of the dynamic condition to assist the occupant of the vehicle in engaging with the dynamic condition ( Para. 134-143: dynamic vst/vur windows that move, resize, and update based on head movement and user commands. 192-204: teaches multiple presentation modes where the displayed graphics change in response to driving events. Figs 18a-19c illustrate different animated display behaviors. 201-203: switching between different display modes and dynamically changing the size and position of the vst/vur windows. It would have been obvious to use the virtual graphical representation techniques of Hershkovitz in the system of EKELUND because such graphical representations provide users with a more intuitive and informative way to convey information, thereby improving the effectiveness of the user interface.).
Jerg teaches animated metaphorical graphical representation (Para. 14-24 and 48:teaches that the graphical representation may be animated, nonliteral avatar whose actions and animation characteristics vary based on the detected condition and its urgency. It would have been obvious to incorporate Jerg’s animated, condition dependent avatar representations into the vehicle warning display of Ekelund Hershkovitz to communicate detected vehicle or environmental conditions and their changing urgency more intuitively, thereby improving the occupant’s perception and understanding of the displayed information.).
Regarding claim 10, it falls under the same rejection as claim 2 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 11, it falls under the same rejection as claim 7 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 13, EKELUND teaches A method, comprising: detecting, through automated analysis of input data using a processor( Para. 59-73: processing circuitry analyzes camera/sensor input and detects impaired visibility or substances on the window), a dynamic condition pertaining to one of a vehicle and an environment external to the vehicle ( para 59-74: detects impaired visibility caused by rain, mud, snow, dust., affecting the drivers view of the external environment ); and display, to an occupant of the vehicle (Para.59-74: display 10a/10b presents the camera image to the vehicle occupant. Para.61, 67, 73: allows the occupant to detect obstacles and avoid unsafe traffic situations), but fails to teach an animated metaphorical graphical representation of the status, in real time, of the dynamic condition to assist the occupant of the vehicle in engaging with the dynamic condition.
Hershkovitz teaches an representation of the status, in real time, of the dynamic condition to assist the occupant of the vehicle in engaging with the dynamic condition ( Para. 134-143: dynamic vst/vur windows that move, resize, and update based on head movement and user commands. 192-204: teaches multiple presentation modes where the displayed graphics change in response to driving events. Figs 18a-19c illustrate different animated display behaviors. 201-203: switching between different display modes and dynamically changing the size and position of the vst/vur windows. It would have been obvious to use the virtual graphical representation techniques of Hershkovitz in the system of EKELUND because such graphical representations provide users with a more intuitive and informative way to convey information, thereby improving the effectiveness of the user interface.).
Jerg teaches animated metaphorical graphical representation (Para. 14-24 and 48:teaches that the graphical representation may be animated, nonliteral avatar whose actions and animation characteristics vary based on the detected condition and its urgency. It would have been obvious to incorporate Jerg’s animated, condition dependent avatar representations into the vehicle warning display of Ekelund Hershkovitz to communicate detected vehicle or environmental conditions and their changing urgency more intuitively, thereby improving the occupant’s perception and understanding of the displayed information.).
Regarding claim 14, it falls under the same rejection as claim 2 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 15, it falls under the same rejection as claim 3 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 16, it falls under the same rejection as claim 4 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 17, it falls under the same rejection as claim 5 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 18, it falls under the same rejection as claim 6 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 19, it falls under the same rejection as claim 7 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Claim(s) 8, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekelund et al. (US-20230391261-A1) in view of Hershkovitz (US-20180326999-A1) and in further view of Jerg (US-20250042425-A1) and Carrigan (US-20250315278-A1) .
Regarding claim 8, EKELUND in view of Hershkovitz and Jerg teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions to display, to the occupant of the vehicle, the animated metaphorical graphical representation include instructions that, when executed by the processor, but fails to teach cause the processor to create the animated metaphorical graphical representation using a generative-artificial-intelligence-based model.
Carrigan teaches the processor to create the animated metaphorical graphical representation using a generative-artificial-intelligence-based model ( para.582: teaches using machine learning to generate graphical representation and display. It would have been obvious to modify the display system of EKELUND in view of Hershkovitz and Jerg to generate the graphical representation using the generative AI techniques Carrigan in order to automatically create adaptive, context specific graphical content that is more informative and personalized for the vehicle occupant ).
Regarding claim 12, it falls under the same rejection as claim 8 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Regarding claim 20, it falls under the same rejection as claim 8 it is similar in scope dependent upon same references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/31/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been made in view of EKELUND in view of Hershkovitz and Jerg. Applicant argues that the prior arts does not teach the limitation of “an animated metaphorical graphical representation of the status, in real time, of the dynamic condition to assist the occupant of the vehicle in engaging with the dynamic condition, wherein the animated metaphorical graphical representation is suggestive of or analogous to the dynamic condition and the animated metaphorical graphical representation changes in real time as the status of the dynamic condition changes.”. Hershkovitz teaches changing the displayed graphical representation in response to changes in the tatus of the dynamic condition, including changes between presentation modes based on whether an SDRS even is imminent and switching back based on an updated indication that the event is no longer imminent (Para. 202-203). Herhkovitz further teaches varying the intensity of a flashing warning icon based on the detected circumstances ( Para. 369-370). Jerg further teaches that the graphical representation may be animated, nonliteral avatar whose actions and animation characteristics vary based on the detected condition and its urgency (Para. 14-24 and 48). It would have been obvious to incorporate Jerg’s animated, condition dependent avatar representations into the vehicle warning display of Ekelund Hershkovitz to communicate detected vehicle or environmental conditions and their changing urgency more intuitively, thereby improving the occupant’s perception and understanding of the displayed information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bush (US-20230058508-A1) : it senses exterior conditions, presents vehicle, obstacle traffic control state, route, risk, and maneuver intent graphics to an occupant.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATRELL ANTHONY CREARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
-/LATRELL ANTHONY CREARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights