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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 July 2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1:
It recites “wherein the image information is obtained from a non-driver position of the vehicle.”
It’s not clear what this means. In the specification, it discusses the image being “obtained” by an image capturing device. Does this language mean that the image capture device is at a non-driver position of the vehicle? Or does it mean that the image information is an image of a non-driver position of the vehicle?
Judging by the specification, applicant probably means the second, but in that case it’s not an image “obtained from” that position but instead an image of that position. This should be clarified so that the metes and bounds of the claim can be understood.
Regarding claims 1-9:
Claims 1-9 are dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 10:
It recites “a receiver configured to obtain image information comprising a first eye position and a line-of-sight direction of a first user from a non-driver position of the vehicle.” This perhaps more clear than claim 1, but it still is ambiguous. It would be more clear if it said it is “configured to obtain image information…of a non-driver position of the vehicle.”
Regarding claims 11-19:
They are dependent on claim 10.
Regarding claim 20:
It similarly has the “obtained from” language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN 114056344: machine translation relied upon) in view of Amano (US 2019/0220238).
Regarding claim 1:
Tang discloses some but not every element of the claim as follows.
Claim 1
Tang
1. A display method, comprising:
obtaining image information comprising a first eye position and a line-of-sight direction of a first user of a vehicle,
Claim 1: "line-of-sight detection unit…to detect whether the one or more occupant faces the display device"
wherein the image information is obtained from a non-driver position of the vehicle; and
Page 6, last paragraph: "receives whether the occupant is looking at the target display device and whether other occupants are looking at the target display device." The occupant or "other occupants" must be a non-driver since there is only one driver,
adjusting, based on the first eye position and the line-of-sight direction, a display manner of a first area in a head-up display,
Claim 1: "suppress or delay to display the…information", where Tang does not disclose it is a head-up display
wherein the first area comprises privacy information of a second user, and
Background 1: "privacy content"
wherein the privacy information is associated with a driver position of the vehicle.
Page 2, second paragraph: "based on the establishing matching relationship," where this will be met if the information is for the occupant is being directed toward the driver
Tang does not disclose that the first area is "in a head-up display"
Amano discloses:
a first area is in a head-up display (paragraph 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Tang the element taught by Amano.
The rationale is as follows:
Tang and Amano are directed to the same field of art.
Amano discloses a type of display used for the same purpose and in the same environment as Tang's. One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the display taught by Amano with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
wherein the first user is located in a non-driver position of the vehicle and the second user is located in a driver position of the vehicle (Tang page 5, last paragraph: "a driver…an occupant," where the person directed to the information could be any of the occupants as per page 6, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 3:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
wherein the first user is located in a front passenger position of the vehicle (Tang calls this the "co-pilot" position as per page 5, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 4:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
comprising adjusting the first area in the head-up display to a first display manner when a first condition is met, wherein the first condition comprises at: the first eye position is within a viewing angle range of the head-up display (Tang page 9: "detecting that only the target information receives the sight of the driver," where as per page 7 this includes “detecting…viewing angle”).
Regarding claim 5:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
wherein the first display manner comprises: hiding the first area (Tang page 9, last paragraph: "suppress display (information to be displayed) is "hiding" it).
Regarding claim 6:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
adjusting from the first display manner to a second display manner when a second condition is met, and wherein the second condition comprises: the line-of-sight direction is misaligned with respect to the head-up display (this is Tang page 9: "only the light of sight of the target information receiving driver…").
Regarding claim 8:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
wherein the image information further comprises a second eye position of the second user (page 9: "only the line of sight of the target information receiving driver"), and wherein the display method further comprises determining whether the first eye position is within a viewing angle range by: determining an included angle formed by a second connection line between the second eye position and a first target point in the head-up display and a first connection line between the first eye position and the first target point to obtain a first angle value; and determining, based on the first angle value, whether the first eye position is within the viewing angle range (Tang page 8, last paragraph to page 9, first paragraph: "3D viewing angle").
Regarding claim 9:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
wherein before obtaining the image information, the display method further comprises enabling a privacy information protection mode when a third condition is met, and wherein the third condition comprises at least one of: the first user and the second user are in the vehicle; or the first user is not a preset user (e.g., Tang page 11: "the login status of the one or more occupants" is whether they are a preset user).
Regarding claim 10:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
A display apparatus, comprising: a head-up display (taught by Amano as discussed above) comprising a first area, wherein the first area comprises privacy information of a second user of a vehicle (Tang, background: "privacy content"), and wherein the privacy information is associated with a driver position of the vehicle (Tang page 2, second paragraph: "based on the establishing matching relationship," where this will be met if the information is for the occupant is being directed toward the driver); a receiver configured to obtain image information comprising a first eye position and a line-of-sight direction of a first user from a non-driver position of the vehicle (Tang page 5: "gaze detection unit 130"); and one or more processors configured to adjust a display manner of the first area based on the first eye position and the line-of-sight direction (Tang page 1: "computer device," with the details of the adjustment as discussed earlier).
Regarding claim 11:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
wherein the receiver is configured to obtain the image information from a non-driver position of the vehicle and from a driver position of the vehicle (Tang pages 6-7: "one or more occupants," where these positions are per the last paragraph of page 5).
Regarding claim 12:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
wherein the non-driver position comprises a rear-row area of the vehicle (it could as per the last paragraph of Tang page 5).
Regarding claim 19:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to enable a privacy information protection mode when a third condition is met, and wherein the third condition comprises: a mode setting instruction is present (determining if information is sensitive or private is setting a mode, as per, e.g., Tang page 2).
Regarding claim 20:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Amano, and further in view of Sharifi et al. (US 2018/0285592)
Regarding claim 7:
Regarding claim 7:
Tang in view of Amano discloses a display method as discussed above.
Tang in view of Amano does not disclose:
“wherein the second display manner comprises: switching a second resolution of the first area to a first resolution and displaying the privacy information in the first resolution, wherein the first resolution is higher than the second resolution”
Sharifi discloses:
wherein the second display manner comprises: switching a second resolution of the first area to a first resolution and displaying the privacy information in the first resolution, wherein the first resolution is higher than the second resolution (paragraph 69: “blurring text” or “changing a font (e.g., size, color, type or other attribute)” constitute displaying the information in a different resolution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Tang in view of Amano the elements taught by Sharifi.
The rationale is as follows:
Tang, Amano, and Sharifi are directed to the same field of art.
Tang discloses hiding privacy information and then revealing it when the correct conditions are met. Sharifi teaches one way to hid information is to change the resolution. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Amano, and further in view of Karakotsios et al. (US 8,957,847)
Regarding claim 13:
Tang in view of Amano discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
adjust the display manner of the first area to a first display manner when a first condition is met (as discussed above).
Tang in view of Amano does not disclose:
“wherein the first condition comprises: a duration for which the line-of-sight direction of the first user is aligned with the head-up display is greater than or equal to a preset duration.”
Karakotsios discloses:
wherein the first condition comprises: a duration for which the line-of-sight direction of the first user is aligned with the head-up display is greater than or equal to a preset duration (column 2, lines 15-56: “minimum threshold amount of time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Tang in view of Amano the elements taught by Karakotsios.
The rationale is as follows:
Tang, Amano, and Karakotsios are directed to the same field of art.
Karakotsios discloses before displaying information the device should make sure the user is actually interested and not just glancing at it, and that a preset duration is the way to do this. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 14:
Tang, etc., discloses:
are configured to cause the head-up display to adjust the first display manner to display by
fading the first area (Tang page 9: “suppress the display information” is “fading” it).
Regarding claim 15:
Tang, etc., discloses:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to adjust from the first display manner to a second display manner when a second condition is met, and wherein the second condition comprises:
the first eye position exceeding the viewing angle range (Tang page 7: “the line of sight is not projected to the target display device”).
Regarding claims 17-18:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Amano, and further in view of Karakotsios, and further in view of Sharifi.
Regarding claim 16:
This is just the combination of elements from claim 15, above, and from claim 7 above (there does not appear to be any difference between “definition” and “resolution”). The combination of Tang and Amano with Karakotsios and Sharifi together is equally obvious. No further elaboration is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (really starting page 8) that the new language directed to the combination of image information obtained from a non-driver position of the vehicle and the privacy information associated with a driver position of the vehicle renders it allowable over the prior art of record.
There are some problems with this language as noted in the 112 rejections above. But applicant’s reasoning here (page 9) is that Tang does not disclose a head-up display, and that Amano solves a privacy problem a different way. Applicant argues this means Amano “teaches away” from the combination.
This is not true. Amano was cited because it discloses a head-up display in a vehicle and also teaches that there may be privacy concerns with this. But Amano does not “teach away” from the solution of Tang. Amano has a different solution but proposing a different method isn’t teaching away from another one that isn’t even mentioned. One of ordinary skill, from the combination of references, is certainly capable of understanding that Tang’s method could be used with a head-up display like those shown in Amano.
Even if that weren’t true, there is no language in most (and certainly not the independent claims) that Amano’s method of modifying the display wouldn’t meet. The claim just requires ”adjusting” a display of the information, and moving it to a different display the way Amano teaches would still meet this language. But regardless Amano’s method is not relied upon at all. The combination is the method of Tang with the simple addition that the displays in Tang could be head-up displays. This is extremely trivial.
From here (page 10) applicant again argues that Tang doesn’t disclose a HUD. Yes, it does not, which is why Amano is relied upon.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights