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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a plurality of road wheels 105” in paragraph 14 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 3, contains a label of “intermediate mage 326” and should be “intermediate image 326”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 6A discloses a label of 700 that had not been disclosed in the specifications. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On paragraph 29, figure label 116 was disclosed on Fig. 2 and should be figure label 120. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On paragraph 31-32, 47, 55, 56-57, and 59 “scene configurator 302” should be “scene configuration 302”. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On paragraph 59, “image 326” should be “intermediate image 326”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 10, 11, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) in view of Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993).
Regarding claim 1, Maruoka discloses a vehicle comprising (para 29, “As illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2, in the first embodiment, for example, the vehicle 1 is a four-wheeled vehicle, and includes two left/right front wheels 3F, and two left/right rear wheels 3R.”; also, para 23, “Hereinafter, descriptions will be made on an example of a periphery monitoring device according to the embodiment, which is mounted in a vehicle 1.”): vehicle body (para 26, “As illustrated in FIG. 1, a vehicle body 2 constitutes the vehicle compartment 2a on which a user (not illustrated) gets.“) display device within the vehicle body (para 27, “As illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 3, a monitor device 10 including a display screen 8 is provided within the vehicle compartment 2a.”; also, para 27, “The display screen 8 is constituted by, for example, a liquid crystal display (LCD), an organic electroluminescent display (OELD), or the like.”); and a control system coupled to (para 45, “The ECU 14 is, for example, a computer. The ECU 14 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 14a, a read only memory (ROM) 14b, a random access memory (RAM) 14c, a display controller 14d, and a solid state drive (SSD) 14e.“) display device, the control system configured to (para 35, “As illustrated in FIG. 4, in the periphery monitoring system 100, the monitor device 10, the ECU 14, the indicator operation unit 19, the headlight operation unit 20, a shift sensor 21, a wheel speed sensor 22, an accelerator sensor 23, four vehicle height sensors 24, four door sensors 25, a steering angle sensor 26, two acceleration sensors 27, a brake system 28, and a steering system 29 are electrically connected to each other via an in-vehicle network 30.”; also, para 35, “The ECU 14 may control the brake system 28 and the like by sending control signals through the in-vehicle network 30, and may receive detection information from the shift sensor 21, the wheel speed sensor 22, the accelerator sensor 23, the vehicle height sensors 24, the door sensors 25, the steering angle sensor 26, the acceleration sensors 27, a brake sensor 28b, a torque sensor 29b and the like, and operation information from the monitor operation unit 9, the indicator operation unit 19, the headlight operation unit 20, and the like through the in-vehicle network 30.”): detect a change to at least one of the chassis or the vehicle body (para 55, “In another example, the state of the vehicle 1 includes an opened/closed state of each door 2d. The periphery monitoring device may determine the opened/closed state of each door 2d based on detection information of the door sensor 25.”; also, para 55, “In this manner, the periphery monitoring device reflects the opened/closed state of each door 2d on the vehicle model image 81 in real time.”); generate a three-dimensional scene (para 80, “The output unit 205 arranges the environment model generated by the environment model generator 203 and the vehicle model 211 processed by the vehicle model processing unit 204 in the same virtual space.”; also, para 77, “The environment model generator 203 projects the generated image on the generated topographical data through a method such as texture mapping. The information indicating a stereoscopic shape of the peripheral environment, which is generated through the processing, is referred to as an environment model.”; also, para 80, “In this description, after the environment model and the vehicle model 211 are arranged in the virtual space, an image from a virtual viewpoint is computed.”) including a representation of a three-dimensional model the vehicle (para 79, “The vehicle model 211 is data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the vehicle 1.”; also, para 49, “The periphery monitoring device stores a vehicle model (vehicle model 211) indicating the three-dimensional shape of the vehicle 1 in advance.”; also, para 49, “That is, the vehicle model image 81 is an example of the vehicle model 211 that is displayed”) , the three dimensional scene corresponding to the change (para 50, “Here, the periphery monitoring device acquires the state of the vehicle 1, and reflects the acquired state on the vehicle model 211, thereby reflecting the state of the vehicle 1 on the vehicle model image 81.”; also, para 105, “The vehicle model processing unit 204 changes an angle between the model of the corresponding door included in the vehicle model 211 and the model of the vehicle body 2 included in the vehicle model 211 according to detection information from each door sensor 25.”); render the three-dimensional scene to obtain an image (para 49, “The periphery monitoring device disposes the vehicle model 211 and a virtual viewpoint in a virtual space, calculates an image visible when the vehicle model 211 is viewed from the virtual viewpoint, and sets the obtained image as the vehicle model image 81.”; also, para 108, “Then, the output unit 205 sets a virtual viewpoint in the virtual space (S213), and calculates an image (image frame) to be output to the display screen 8 based on the virtual viewpoint (S214).”); and output the image on the display device (para 80, “The output unit 205 generates an image frame to be displayed on the display screen 8 based on the environment model and the vehicle model 211 arranged in the virtual space, and outputs the generated image frame to the display screen 8.”; also, para 108, “The output unit 205 outputs the image (image frame) obtained through calculation to the display screen 8 (S215), and the process of controlling the display is completed.”). Maruoka does not disclose a chassis, mounted to the chassis, and the chassis.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Rood discloses a chassis (para 36, “The vehicle 10 generally includes a chassis 12 supporting an operator cab 14 and a vehicle body 16.”; also, para 36, “The chassis 12 is a truck chassis and may have frame members or rail members 11, and the chassis 12 has a front portion 17 for supporting the operator cab 14 and a rear portion 19 for supporting the body 16.”), mounted to the chassis (para 36, “When assembled, the body 16 and the operator cab 14 are mounted on the chassis 12.”), and the chassis (para 36, “The chassis 12 is a truck chassis and may have frame members or rail members 11, and the chassis 12 has a front portion 17 for supporting the operator cab 14 and a rear portion 19 for supporting the body 16.”; also, para 36, “The rail members 11 may extend substantially the entire length of the chassis 12 in one embodiment, and may serve as points of support and/or connection for the body 16, the cab 14, the axles 13, and other components.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka's invention of a vehicle having a vehicle body that constitutes a vehicle compartment, a monitor device including a display screen provided within that compartment, an electronic control unit that detects the extension and contraction amount of each suspension and the opened and closed state of each door, that stores a vehicle model indicating the three-dimensional shape of the vehicle and arranges it with an environment model in a virtual space, that reflects the acquired state of the vehicle on the vehicle model, that calculates an image of the vehicle model as viewed from a virtual viewpoint, and that outputs the resulting image frame to the display screen, with the features of Rood's invention of a chassis supporting a vehicle body that is mounted on the chassis and whose rail members serve as points of support and connection for the body, the cab, and the axles. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka's periphery monitoring device is an in-vehicle system whose sensors report the position of the wheels relative to the vehicle body and the opened and closed state of the doors, and a person of ordinary skill implementing that system in a production vehicle has to place it in a vehicle whose body is carried on a load-bearing structure and whose controllers communicate with both that structure's components and the cabin display. Rood supplies exactly that architecture for the same kind of road vehicle, and the result is predictable because placing Maruoka's electronic control unit and monitor device in Rood's chassis-and-body vehicle changes nothing about how Maruoka computes or outputs its image. It only identifies the structure that Maruoka's suspensions position the wheels against, that Maruoka's vehicle body sits upon, and that Maruoka's electronic control unit reaches over the in-vehicle network when it reads the vehicle height sensors and the brake system.
Regarding claim 10, Maruoka as modified by Rood discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein Maruoka further discloses the change is a change to the vehicle body and includes at least one a change to a state of a door or a change to a state of a port cover (para 55, “In another example, the state of the vehicle 1 includes an opened/closed state of each door 2d.”; also, para 55, “When any one of doors 2d is opened, the periphery monitoring device displays a portion of a corresponding door within the vehicle model image 81 (hereinafter, referred to as a "door portion") in an opened state on the display screen 8. When any one of doors 2d is closed, the periphery monitoring device displays a corresponding door portion in a closed state, on the display screen 8.”; also, para 55, “In this manner, the periphery monitoring device reflects the opened/closed state of each door 2d on the vehicle model image 81 in real time.”).
Regarding claim 11, Maruoka as modified by Rood discloses the vehicle of claim 10, wherein Maruoka further discloses the control system is configured to generate the three-dimensional scene including the representation of the three-dimensional model of the vehicle with the three-dimensional model being modified according to the change to the vehicle body (para 105, “In the processing in S210, in another example, the vehicle model 211 includes, for example, a portion of the vehicle model 211 corresponding to each door and a model portion of the vehicle model 211 corresponding to the portion of the vehicle body 2 as separate data such that the relative positional relationship between the model of the vehicle body 2 and the model of each door 2d may be freely changed.”; also, para 105, “The vehicle model processing unit 204 changes an angle between the model of the corresponding door included in the vehicle model 211 and the model of the vehicle body 2 included in the vehicle model 211 according to detection information from each door sensor 25.”).
Regarding claim 16, Maruoka as modified by Rood discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein Maruoka further discloses the control system is configured to generate the three-dimensional scene by: detecting one or more attributes of an environment of the vehicle (para 33, “The laser range scanner 15 is an example of a measuring unit for measuring a three-dimensional shape of a road surface.”; also, para 33, “The laser range scanner 15 measures the three-dimensional shape of a road surface (here, a road surface in the forward direction of the vehicle 1).”; also, para 33, “The laser range scanner 15 is configured to output topographical data.”); and generating the three-dimensional scene according to the environment of the vehicle (para 77, “The environment model generator 203 projects the generated image on the generated topographical data through a method such as texture mapping. The information indicating a stereoscopic shape of the peripheral environment, which is generated through the processing, is referred to as an environment model.”; also, para 80, “The output unit 205 arranges the environment model generated by the environment model generator 203 and the vehicle model 211 processed by the vehicle model processing unit 204 in the same virtual space.”).
Regarding claim 20, Maruoka discloses a method comprising (para 89, “FIG. 12 is a flow chart illustrating the procedure of a process of controlling a display in the periphery monitoring device according to the first embodiment.”; also, para 89, “The drawing illustrates a process until one image frame is output to the display screen 8.”): detecting, by a control system of a vehicle, a change to at least one of (para 45, “The ECU 14 is, for example, a computer.”; also, para 50, “The periphery monitoring device determines the state of the vehicle 1 based on information corresponding to the state of the vehicle 1. The information corresponding to the state of the vehicle 1 includes detection results of various sensors or operation information input to various operation units.”) vehicle body of the vehicle (para 55, “In another example, the state of the vehicle 1 includes an opened/closed state of each door 2d. The periphery monitoring device may determine the opened/closed state of each door 2d based on detection information of the door sensor 25.”; also, para 55, “In this manner, the periphery monitoring device reflects the opened/closed state of each door 2d on the vehicle model image 81 in real time”); and in response to detecting the change to at the at least one of the chassis and the vehicle, performing, by the control system (para 50, “Here, the periphery monitoring device acquires the state of the vehicle 1, and reflects the acquired state on the vehicle model 211, thereby reflecting the state of the vehicle 1 on the vehicle model image 81.”; also, para 55, “In this manner, the periphery monitoring device reflects the opened/closed state of each door 2d on the vehicle model image 81 in real time.”): generating a three-dimensional scene (para 80, “The output unit 205 arranges the environment model generated by the environment model generator 203 and the vehicle model 211 processed by the vehicle model processing unit 204 in the same virtual space.”; also, para 77, “The environment model generator 203 projects the generated image on the generated topographical data through a method such as texture mapping. The information indicating a stereoscopic shape of the peripheral environment, which is generated through the processing, is referred to as an environment model.”) including a representation of a three-dimensional model the vehicle (para 79, “The vehicle model 211 is data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the vehicle 1.”; also, para 49, “That is, the vehicle model image 81 is an example of the vehicle model 211 that is displayed.”, the three-dimensional scene corresponding to the change (para 50, “Here, the periphery monitoring device acquires the state of the vehicle 1, and reflects the acquired state on the vehicle model 211, thereby reflecting the state of the vehicle 1 on the vehicle model image 81.”; also, para 105, “The vehicle model processing unit 204 changes an angle between the model of the corresponding door included in the vehicle model 211 and the model of the vehicle body 2 included in the vehicle model 211 according to detection information from each door sensor 25.”); rendering the three-dimensional scene to obtain an image (para 108, “Then, the output unit 205 sets a virtual viewpoint in the virtual space (S213), and calculates an image (image frame) to be output to the display screen 8 based on the virtual viewpoint (S214).”; also, para 80, “In this description, after the environment model and the vehicle model 211 are arranged in the virtual space, an image from a virtual viewpoint is computed.”); and outputting the image on a display device of the vehicle (para 108, “The output unit 205 outputs the image (image frame) obtained through calculation to the display screen 8 (S215), and the process of controlling the display is completed.”; also, para 27, “As illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 3, a monitor device 10 including a display screen 8 is provided within the vehicle compartment 2a.”). Maruoka does not disclose a chassis.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Rood discloses a chassis (para 36, “The vehicle 10 generally includes a chassis 12 supporting an operator cab 14 and a vehicle body 16.”; also, para 36, “As is known in the art, the chassis 12 has a front axle 13 and one or more rear axles 13 which in turn are attached to wheels 18 for movement of the chassis 12 along a surface.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka's invention of a method in which an electronic control unit of a vehicle determines the state of the vehicle from sensor detection results including the opened and closed state of each door, reflects the acquired state on a stored three-dimensional vehicle model, arranges that model with an environment model in a virtual space, sets a virtual viewpoint and calculates an image frame from it, and outputs that image frame to a display screen provided within the vehicle compartment, with the features of Rood's invention of a vehicle having a chassis that supports the vehicle body and carries the axles and wheels. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka's method runs on a road vehicle whose suspensions position its wheels relative to its body, and naming the load-bearing structure that carries those suspensions is the ordinary way a person of ordinary skill describes such a vehicle. Rood describes that structure for the same kind of road vehicle, and the result is predictable because identifying Maruoka's vehicle as having a chassis alters none of the detecting, generating, rendering or outputting steps that Maruoka performs.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) as modified by Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993), further in view of Rich (U.S. Pub. No. 20210114610).
Regarding claim 2, Maruoka as modified by Rood discloses the vehicle of claim 1, modified by Rood does not disclose wherein the change is a change from a first drive mode of a plurality of drive modes to a second drive mode of the plurality of drive modes, each drive mode of the plurality of drive modes having a set of attributes of the chassis.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Rich discloses wherein the change is a change from a first drive mode of a plurality of drive modes to a second drive mode of the plurality of drive modes, each drive mode of the plurality of drive modes having a set of attributes of the chassis (para 69, “The drive mode selected can be any of a plurality of drive modes such as, for example, a SPORT MODE, SPORT-PLUS MODE, COMFORT MODE, ECONOMY MODE, CUSTOM MODE or other mode.”; also, para 70, “At operation 342, the vehicle sets one or more systems (e.g., vehicle components or systems) to a setting that is appropriate for the selected drive mode. For example, in a SPORT MODE as compared to a COMFORT MODE, transmission shift points may be raised, throttle response may be heightened, adjustable suspension can be stiffened, steering assist can be reduced and so on.”; also, para 69, “As another example the vehicle operator may select the drive mode from one or more of a plurality of drive mode actuators such as a switch, button, knob, touchscreen or other user interface.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood, in which an electronic control unit of a vehicle having a chassis and a vehicle body mounted on that chassis detects the state of the vehicle, reflects that state on a stored three-dimensional vehicle model arranged in a virtual space, and outputs a calculated image frame to a display screen inside the vehicle, with the features of Rich's invention of a plurality of operator-selectable drive modes in which the selection of a mode sets the vehicle's suspension, shift points, throttle response and steering assist to the settings appropriate for that mode. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka already detects and depicts the relative position of the wheels and the vehicle body, and a drive-mode selection of the kind Rich describes is precisely the event that changes that relative position on a vehicle with an adjustable suspension. A person of ordinary skill working on Maruoka's display would have looked too Rich for the operator-facing mechanism that drives such a change, and the result is predictable because Maruoka's device reflects whatever suspension state its sensors report without regard to what caused the state to change.
Regarding claim 5, Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich discloses the vehicle of claim 2, wherein Rich further discloses the set of attributes of the chassis include attributes of a suspension of the chassis (para 70, “For example, in a SPORT MODE as compared to a COMFORT MODE, transmission shift points may be raised, throttle response may be heightened, adjustable suspension can be stiffened, steering assist can be reduced and so on.”; also, para 71, “For example, vehicle system settings (e.g., one or more of steering, suspension, throttle mapping, shift points, etc.) can be adjusted from the selected drive mode settings to provide a more appropriate vehicle response or driving experience given that the vehicle is now in the 4WD-LO mode.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it offers a plurality of selectable drive modes and detects the extension and contraction amount of each suspension and reflects it on a three-dimensional vehicle model output to an in-cabin display, with the features of Rich's invention of a drive mode whose set of vehicle system settings includes an adjustable suspension. The combination would have been obvious because the sensed quantity Maruoka depicts is the suspension state itself, so the mode attribute a person of ordinary skill would first tie to Maruoka's depiction is the suspension setting, and Rich states that attribute expressly. The result is predictable because Rich's suspension adjustment produces the very extension and contraction that Maruoka's vehicle height sensors already measure.
Regarding claim 6, Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich discloses the vehicle of claim 5, wherein Rich further discloses the attributes of the suspension include at least one of ride height, suspension stiffness, or suspension damping (para 71, “For example, if the vehicle is in SPORT MODE with a lowered ride height, the system may adapt the 4WD-LO mode so that the ride height is raised while the other SPORT MODE settings remain intact.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich, in which a plurality of selectable drive modes set the systems of a vehicle whose suspension extension and contraction amount is detected and reflected on a three-dimensional vehicle model output to an in-cabin display, with the features of Rich's invention of vehicle system settings that adjust suspension stiffness and ride height for a selected drive mode. The combination would have been obvious because ride height is the single suspension attribute that changes the depicted distance between the model of the wheel and the model of the vehicle body, which is exactly what Maruoka's device is built to show, and Rich names that attribute together with a named drive mode that carries it. The result is predictable because raising or lowering ride height under Rich changes the suspension extension that Maruoka's sensors report, and Maruoka's model then depicts the new value without further modification.
Regarding claim 9, Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich discloses the vehicle of claim 2, wherein Rich further discloses the plurality of drive modes include at least one off-road mode and at least one conserve mode (para 54, “In the illustrated example the Drive Mode Menu displays a number of driving modes that can be selected or assigned to a sport mode button. This example illustrates at 203 SPORT+, SPORT, TOWING, ECONOMY AND OFF-ROAD driving modes.”; also, para 54, “Alternative or additional driving modes can be included in various embodiments.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich, in which a change from one selectable drive mode to another is detected and reflected on a three-dimensional vehicle model rendered to an in-cabin display, with the features of Rich's invention of a drive mode menu whose selectable driving modes include an economy mode and an off-road mode. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka's own display example is directed to a vehicle traveling on off-road terrain, so a person of ordinary skill fitting Maruoka's device to a vehicle with selectable modes would have taken the mode set from a reference whose menu already contains an off-road mode, and Rich's menu contains one alongside an economy mode, which is a mode whose settings conserve energy and therefore a conserve mode under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term. The result is predictable because adding named modes to the menu changes only which suspension and powertrain settings are applied, not how Maruoka detects the resulting state or renders it.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) as modified by Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993), and Rich (U.S. Pub. No. 20210114610), further in view of Hirano et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170061669).
Regarding claim 3, Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich discloses the vehicle of claim 2, wherein Maruoka further discloses the control system is configured to generate the three-dimensional scene (para 80, “The output unit 205 arranges the environment model generated by the environment model generator 203 and the vehicle model 211 processed by the vehicle model processing unit 204 in the same virtual space.”) adding one or more props to the three-dimensional scene, the one or more props corresponding to the second drive mode.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hirano discloses by adding one or more props to the three-dimensional scene, the one or more props corresponding to the second drive mode (para 48, “In displaying the appearance of the vehicle I in the form of a perspective view, the display control unit 13 may also display a road surface corresponding to the running mode. For example, where the running mode is "expressway," the display control unit 13 displays a road surface image R indicating that the surface to which the tires of the vehicle I are supposed to be in contact is a paved surface.”; also, para 52, “The vehicular information processing apparatus 1 according to the embodiment displays a road surface state corresponding to the selected running mode on the touch screen display 20 together with an appearance of the vehicle I.”; also, para 52, “Since by looking at the road surface displayed in the vehicle display region B the user can recognize whether it is sandy, rocky, or of an expressway, it is thought that the user can easily check whether he or she has selected a correct running mode.”; also, para 40, “The image of the vehicle I is stored in the storage unit 11 in the form of 3D data, and the display control unit 13 displays it after performing a coordinate calculation and drawing processing.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it offers a plurality of selectable drive modes that set the vehicle's suspension and other systems, and arranges a three-dimensional vehicle model with a model of its surroundings in a virtual space from which an in-cabin display image is computed, with the features of Hirano's invention of displaying, together with the appearance of the vehicle, a road surface whose depicted character is determined by which running mode the driver has selected, so that the user can recognize whether it is sandy, rocky, or of an expressway. The combination would have been obvious because the combination already lets the driver choose among modes that reconfigure the chassis and already assembles a virtual space around a three-dimensional vehicle model, yet nothing in it decides what the surroundings placed in that space should show once a mode has been chosen, and Hirano decides exactly that, keying the depicted surface to the selected mode. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Hirano because Hirano addresses the same moment in the same setting, a driver selecting among running modes on a vehicle display that draws the vehicle from stored three-dimensional data, and because Hirano states the benefit the keying produces, that the user can check at a glance whether the correct mode has been selected. The result is predictable because the object whose character the mode selects is placed in the same virtual space the combination already assembles around the vehicle model, before the image is computed from the virtual viewpoint.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) as modified by Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993), Rich (U.S. Pub. No. 20210114610) and Hirano et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170061669), further in view of Ren et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20140277939).
Regarding claim 4, Maruoka as modified by Rood, Rich, and Hirano disclose the vehicle of claim 3, wherein Maruoka further discloses the control system is configured generate the three-dimensional scene (para 80, “The output unit 205 arranges the environment model generated by the environment model generator 203 and the vehicle model 211 processed by the vehicle model processing unit 204 in the same virtual space.”; also, para 108, “Then, the output unit 205 sets a virtual viewpoint in the virtual space (S213), and calculates an image (image frame) to be output to the display screen 8 based on the virtual viewpoint (S214).”) animating the one or more props.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ren discloses by animating the one or more props (para 29, “The weather and seasonal effects data 136 include 3D graphics objects, textures, and dynamic shader programs that generate one or more graphical effects and animations to transform the depiction of the static map feature graphics in the 3D virtual environment.”; also, para 43, “In one configuration, the GPU 116 introduces animated graphical effects that are displayed as a series of frames through the display device 144 in addition to the static map features. For example, the GPU 116 generates animated graphical effects depicting falling precipitation and windy conditions in the 3D virtual environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood, Rich, and Hirano, in which a vehicle offering a plurality of selectable drive modes places in a virtual space, alongside its three-dimensional vehicle model, an object whose depicted character is determined by the mode the driver has selected, with the features of Ren's invention of three-dimensional graphics objects and dynamic shader programs that introduce animated graphical effects into a three-dimensional virtual environment shown on an in-vehicle display, displayed as a series of frames in addition to the static features. The combination would have been obvious because the object the combination places in the scene is held as three-dimensional data and drawn frame by frame to the same display, so animating requires nothing the combination does not already have, and Ren supplies the animation stage for exactly that kind of object in exactly that kind of in-vehicle three-dimensional environment. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Ren because Ren addresses the depiction of the objects placed around the vehicle in an in-vehicle three-dimensional environment and treats animation of those objects as the ordinary way to make a depiction read as the condition it stands for. The result is predictable because an animated object is drawn by the same graphics processing path the combination already uses for the vehicle model and its surroundings, and the animation changes only what the object looks like across successive frames.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) as modified by Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993), and Rich (U.S. Pub. No. 20210114610), further in view of Barnett et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20230226928).
Regarding claim 7, Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich discloses the vehicle of claim 2, set of attributes of the chassis include behavior of drive units of the chassis.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Barnett discloses wherein the set of attributes of the chassis include behavior of drive units of the chassis (para 142, “As will be described herein with reference to FIGS. 32A-32D, vehicle 10 may also have various predetermined and/or preprogrammed drive modes 350a-350d which provide driveline configurations, steering assist settings, throttle maps or sensitivity, and/or regenerative braking settings for use in combination with the various inputs into controller 62 (FIG. 18) for operation of vehicle 10.”; also, para 142, “The driveline configurations may define the capability of torque bias to be distributed between front motor 52b (FIG. 2) and rear motor 52a (FIG. 2), and as such, front and rear ground engaging members 12, 14 (FIG. 1).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood and Rich, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it offers a plurality of selectable drive modes that set the vehicle's suspension and other systems and whose resulting state is reflected on a three-dimensional vehicle model rendered to an in-cabin display, with the features of Barnett's invention of preprogrammed drive modes that provide driveline configurations defining the torque bias distributed between a front motor and a rear motor. The combination would have been obvious because Rich's mode attributes stop at throttle response and leave unstated how the motive units themselves behave in each mode, while Barnett states exactly that for an electrically driven vehicle whose motors turn the ground engaging members. A person of ordinary skill building the mode set of the combination would have looked to Barnett for the motor-level half of the per-mode configuration, and the result is predictable because distributing torque between a front and a rear motor is a setting applied when the mode is selected, in the same way and at the same point as the suspension setting Rich already applies.
Regarding claim 8, Maruoka as modified by Rood, Rich and Barnett discloses the vehicle of claim 7, wherein Barnett further discloses the behavior of the drive units include at least one of an accelerator pedal response, brake pedal response, or a regenerative braking behavior (para 145, “Lastly, the regenerative braking settings will be described with reference to each drive mode. The regenerative braking, indicated by a qualitative level on a scale, may be described as soft, neutral, or firm, which indicates the braking feedback or the level of negative torque provided in response to the operator actuating the brakes.”; also, para 144, “The throttle sensitivity, indicated by a qualitative level illustrated on a scale, may be defined as the general level of response time required to exhibit the throttle output from the actuation of the throttle actuator (i.e., actuation of throttle actuator 86 (FIG. 24)).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood, Rich, and Barnett, in which a plurality of selectable drive modes set the suspension of a vehicle and the torque bias distributed between its front and rear motors, and the resulting state of the vehicle is reflected on a three-dimensional vehicle model rendered to an in-cabin display, with the features of Barnett's invention of a regenerative braking setting described for each drive mode as a level of negative torque provided in response to the operator actuating the brakes. The combination would have been obvious because an electrically driven vehicle of the kind Barnett describes recovers energy through its motors on every braking event, so the per-mode setting that governs how those motors behave is the regenerative braking level, and Barnett ties that level to each mode expressly. The result is predictable because setting a regenerative braking level when a mode is selected uses the same mode-selection path Rich already uses for the suspension setting and changes nothing about how the vehicle's state is sensed or depicted.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) as modified by Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993), further in view of Quast et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20140107888).
Regarding claim 12, Maruoka as modified by Rood discloses the vehicle of claim 10, wherein Maruoka further discloses the control system is configured to generate the three-dimensional scene including the representation of the three-dimensional model of the vehicle (para 80, “The output unit 205 arranges the environment model generated by the environment model generator 203 and the vehicle model 211 processed by the vehicle model processing unit 204 in the same virtual space.”; also, para 49, “That is, the vehicle model image 81 is an example of the vehicle model 211 that is displayed.”) by generating an animation of the three-dimensional model of the vehicle undergoing the change to the vehicle body.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Quast discloses generating an animation of the three-dimensional model of the vehicle undergoing the change to the vehicle body (para 22, “Moreover, displaying the vehicle surround view may comprise dynamic animation of the at least one vehicle component.”; also, para 22, “When such a dynamic animation of the vehicle model is provided, the user may more intuitively perceive the vehicle surround view.”; also, para 7, “Such display control information may contain information on vehicle components, such as wheels, lights or other interior and exterior vehicle components such as the vehicle body or the doors.”; also, para 35, “The sensor 33 detects the opening or closed state of the trunk lid or vehicle door. If it is detected that a vehicle door is open, the respective display control information is adapted such that in the vehicle surround view the vehicle door is displayed in the same opening state.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it detects the opened and closed state of each door and changes the angle between the model of that door and the model of the vehicle body in a three-dimensional vehicle model rendered to an in-cabin display, with the features of Quast's invention of a dynamic animation of a vehicle component whose sensed opening state is reflected in the displayed vehicle model. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka already recomputes the door angle in its model at every control cycle and already holds the door and the body as separately movable data, so the step from matching the end state to animating the movement between states is the use of a known display technique on a model that is already built for it. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Quast for that technique because Quast addresses the same problem in the same kind of vehicle surround view display, and Quast states the benefit, that the user more intuitively perceives the view when the vehicle model is animated rather than static. The result is predictable because the intermediate door angles the animation displays are values Maruoka's model already accepts.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) as modified by Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993), further in view of Filev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20080269958).
Regarding claim 13, Maruoka as modified by Rood discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein Maruoka further discloses the control system is configured to render the three-dimensional scene to obtain the image (para 108, “Then, the output unit 205 sets a virtual viewpoint in the virtual space (S213), and calculates an image (image frame) to be output to the display screen 8 based on the virtual viewpoint (S214).“) by cel shading.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Filev discloses performing cel shading (para 64, “The model may then be illuminated using a shading algorithm that assumes a distribution of point light sources and ambient light. Shading methods generally trade off rendering speed against how natural the image looks, and several methods are known in the art such as ray tracing, Nebulaud shading, Gouraud Shading, Phong shading, Cel-shading, etc.”; also, para 61, “An avatar controller 92, in the embodiment of FIG. 6, may be a computer program and rendering engine that supports rendering of the avatar on the display 40 illustrated in FIG. 2 using one of several sets of Application Programming Interfaces (API).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it calculates an image of a three-dimensional vehicle model from a virtual viewpoint and outputs it to an in-cabin display, with the features of Filev's invention of illuminating a polygonal three-dimensional model in a vehicle display rendering engine using a shading algorithm selected from the art recognized set that includes cel shading. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka must illuminate its vehicle model before it can compute an image of it and leaves the choice of shading algorithm open, while Filev sets out the finite set of shading algorithms a person of ordinary skill chooses among for exactly that step in exactly that setting, an in-vehicle display driven by a rendering engine. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Filev because Filev addresses that step in the same setting, an in-vehicle display driven by a rendering engine, and the result is predictable because Filev states the trade the choice turns on, rendering speed against how natural the image looks, which is the trade an in-vehicle rendering engine with limited computational resources has to make.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) as modified by Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993) and Filev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20080269958), further in view of Raskar (U.S. Pub. No. 20020145605).
Regarding claim 14, Maruoka as modified by Rood and Filev discloses the vehicle of claim 13, three-dimensional model includes objects superimposed thereon, wherein the control system is configured to perform cel shading by modeling the objects as markings on a representation of the three-dimensional model in the image, each marking of the markings highlighting at least one of an outline, an edge, and a crease in the three-dimensional model.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Filev further discloses wherein the control system is configured to perform cel shading (para 64, “The model may then be illuminated using a shading algorithm that assumes a distribution of point light sources and ambient light. Shading methods generally trade off rendering speed against how natural the image looks, and several methods are known in the art such as ray tracing, Nebulaud shading, Gouraud Shading, Phong shading, Cel-shading, etc.”; also, para 61, “An avatar controller 92, in the embodiment of FIG. 6, may be a computer program and rendering engine that supports rendering of the avatar on the display 40 illustrated in FIG. 2 using one of several sets of Application Programming Interfaces (API).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood and Filev, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it calculates an image of a three-dimensional vehicle model from a virtual viewpoint and outputs it to an in-cabin display, with the features of Filev's invention of illuminating a polygonal three-dimensional model in a vehicle display rendering engine using a shading algorithm selected from the art recognized set that includes cel shading. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka must illuminate its vehicle model before it can compute an image of it and leaves the choice of shading algorithm open, while Filev sets out the finite set of shading algorithms a person of ordinary skill chooses among for exactly that step in exactly that setting, an in-vehicle display driven by a rendering engine. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Filev because Filev addresses that step in the same setting, and the result is predictable because Filev states the trade the choice turns on, rendering speed against how natural the image looks, which is the trade an in-vehicle rendering engine with limited computational resources has to make.
Raskar discloses the three-dimensional model includes objects superimposed thereon (para 21, ‘My invention identifies special geometric features, such as silhouettes, ridges, valleys, and intersections, in polygon meshes of scenes and graphics models.”; also, para 23, “In general, I generate at least one additional polygon at each edge of each polygon of the mesh.”; also, para 33, “As shown in FIGS. 3b-c, I add polygons 302-303 at each edge of each front-facing polygon.”), by modeling the objects as markings on a representation of the three-dimensional model in the image, each marking of the markings highlighting at least one of an outline, an edge, and a crease in the three-dimensional model (para 23, “Typically, the additional polygon is black so that it will always stand out over any adjacent polygons, no matter their color (other than black) or textures.”; also, para 22, “I distinguish between front-facing polygons 101 and back-facing polygons 102 so that edges at silhouettes, ridges, valleys, and intersections can be accentuated.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood and Filev, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it calculates an image of a three-dimensional vehicle model from a virtual viewpoint for an in-cabin display and illuminates that model with a cel shading algorithm, with the features of Raskar's invention of generating an additional black polygon at each edge of each polygon of the mesh that represents the model, the added polygons standing out over the adjacent polygons so that the edges at silhouettes, ridges, valleys and intersections are accentuated. The combination would have been obvious because the combination already shades the vehicle model with a cel shading algorithm and must therefore decide how the model's own edges are to be shown once the surfaces between them are reduced to flat tones, and Raskar states a way to show them for a polygon mesh of the kind the combination already holds. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Raskar because Raskar addresses that question for the same subject matter, a polygon mesh representing a graphics model, and because Raskar produces the edges in the geometry rather than in a second image pass, operating on each polygon individually without an adjacency structure, which is what a rendering engine running on a vehicle's limited computational resources can afford. The result is predictable because the added polygons are ordinary polygons drawn through the same rasterization path the combination already uses for the vehicle model, and their color and size are set before the image is computed from the virtual viewpoint.
Regarding claim 15, Maruoka as modified by Rood, and Raskar discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein Rasker further discloses the objects each comprise a plurality of vertices (para 26, “The additionally generated polygons 103 have vertices 105, as well as vertices on the common edge with the polygons 102.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood, Filev, and Raskar, in which the edges of a cel shaded three-dimensional vehicle model rendered to an in-cabin display are accentuated by additional black polygons generated at each edge of each polygon of the model's mesh, with the features of Raskar's invention of additionally generated polygons that carry vertices of their own as well as vertices on the common edge with the polygons they are generated from. The combination would have been obvious because the added polygon of the combination has to be given a position, an orientation and a size before it can be drawn, and Raskar states that the added polygon is defined by its own vertices together with the vertices it shares with the mesh polygon it is generated from, which is what fixes it to that polygon's edge and lets its width be chosen. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Raskar for that construction because it is the construction Raskar gives for the very polygons the combination adds. The result is predictable because a polygon defined by vertices is drawn by the same rasterization path the combination already uses, and nothing about how the vehicle's state is sensed or how the scene is assembled is changed.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) as modified by Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993), further in view of Fujiwara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20070019840).
Regarding claim 17, Maruoka as modified by Rood discloses the vehicle of claim 16, one or more attributes of the environment of the vehicle include a type of landscape in which the vehicle is located.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Fujiwara discloses wherein the one or more attributes of the environment of the vehicle include a type of landscape in which the vehicle is located (para 45, “The exemplary distant view patterns of FIG. 8 as parts to be accommodated within the divided bearing regions includes generic image patterns such as "high mountains" (EB-1) or "low mountains" (EB-2) that may be commonly used for various location points, and images of famous mountains such as "Mt. Fuji" (EB-3) that may be used as a landmark, for example.”; also, para 45, “It is noted that when a bearing region corresponds to a location along the sea or a plain with no mountains, a pattern with no mountains may be used, or an outer circle distant view pattern may not be displayed.”; also, para 47, “Then, in step S2, vehicle position information is acquired from the vehicle position calculation unit 107 to determine where the vehicle is positioned.”; also, para 47, “If the prefecture ID has changed, a corresponding EB pattern (outer circle pattern) assigned to the current prefecture ID is read from the outer circle distant view pattern management table T1 (step S4), and the outer circle pattern to be depicted is reset (step S5).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it measures the three-dimensional shape of the surrounding road surface and builds an environment model from it that is arranged in a virtual space with the vehicle model, with the features of Fujiwara's invention of selecting, from the vehicle's determined position, a stored distant view pattern depicting the kind of landscape found at that position, whether high mountains, low mountains, a location along the sea, or a plain with no mountains. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka's environment model reaches only as far as its laser range scanner measures, so everything beyond that range is unfilled, and a person of ordinary skill completing the scene would have looked to the navigation art for the stored background that fills it. Fujiwara supplies that background and keys it to where the vehicle actually is, and the result is predictable because Maruoka already places its environment model and its vehicle model in one virtual space and computes the image from a virtual viewpoint, so a distant view selected by landscape type occupies the far field of that same space without altering the computation.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruoka et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180089907) as modified by Rood (U.S. Pub. No. 20150193993), further in view of Ren et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20140277939).
Regarding claim 18, Maruoka as modified by Rood discloses the vehicle of claim 16, one or more attributes of the environment of the vehicle include a time of day.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ren discloses wherein the one or more attributes of the environment of the vehicle include a time of day (para 26, “The controller 108 is configured to modify the display the virtual environment including the static map data with reference to multiple dynamic factors including the time of day, location of the vehicle, weather conditions around the vehicle, and traffic patterns around the vehicle.”; also, para 28, “In one embodiment, the environment lighting data 134 include almanac information to identify the relative location of the sun, moon, and phase of the moon with reference to the day of year, time of day, and geographic location of the vehicle when the in-vehicle information system 104 generates a visualization of the 3D virtual environment.”; also, para 28, “During operation, the controller 108 illuminates the map features using natural light sources, artificial light sources, or both to generate a visualization where the lighting conditions in the display correspond to lighting conditions in the physical environment around the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it builds an environment model of its surroundings and arranges it with a three-dimensional vehicle model in a virtual space for output to an in-cabin display, with the features of Ren's invention of generating the visualization of a three-dimensional virtual environment with reference to the time of day, using almanac information that places the sun and moon for the day of year, the time of day and the vehicle's geographic location. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka builds its environment model by projecting camera imagery onto measured topography and says nothing about how that scene is lit, leaving the depiction to look the same at noon as at night. A person of ordinary skill would have looked to Ren, which addresses the same in-vehicle three-dimensional display and states the purpose, so that the lighting conditions in the display correspond to the lighting conditions in the physical environment around the vehicle. The result is predictable because positioning a light source by time of day is applied to the virtual space Maruoka has already assembled, before the image is computed from the virtual viewpoint.
Regarding claim 19, Maruoka as modified by Rood discloses the vehicle of claim 16, one or more attributes of the environment of the vehicle include weather at a location of the vehicle.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ren discloses wherein the one or more attributes of the environment of the vehicle include weather at a location of the vehicle (para 29, “The weather and seasonal effects data 136 include 3D graphics objects, textures, and dynamic shader programs that generate one or more graphical effects and animations to transform the depiction of the static map feature graphics in the 3D virtual environment. For example, weather effects include rain, snow, fog, clouds with varying densities, and rays of light indicating bright sunshine.”; also, para 29, “The in-vehicle information system 104 generates weather and seasonal effects with reference to weather report data from the online information sources 190, sensor data from the vehicle sensors 170, and with current time and date information.”; also, para 32, “If the vehicle travels in a shadow between buildings or through a tunnel, however, the sensors 170 detect reduced light conditions in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.”; also, para 21, “The term "weather condition" refers to types of environment data that correspond to the weather in a region external to the vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Maruoka as modified by Rood, in which a vehicle having a chassis and a body mounted on it builds an environment model of its surroundings and arranges it with a three-dimensional vehicle model in a virtual space for output to an in-cabin display, with the features of Ren's invention of three-dimensional graphics objects, textures and shader programs that transform the depiction of that environment according to the weather in the region external to the vehicle, generated from weather report data and from the vehicle's own sensors. The combination would have been obvious because Maruoka's environment model is built from camera imagery of the ground around the vehicle and carries no indication of the conditions the vehicle is actually driving in, and a person of ordinary skill adding that information would have taken it from Ren, which supplies it for the same kind of in-vehicle three-dimensional display and draws it from sources already present on such a vehicle. The result is predictable because Ren's effects are applied to the objects of the virtual environment before the image is computed, which is the same point in Maruoka's sequence at which its environment model and vehicle model are arranged in the virtual space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jai Li whose telephone number is (571)272-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu between 06:00-16:00 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.
/JAI W LI/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights