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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SURPRESSING MOTION SICKNESS BASED ON VEHICLE MOVING DATA AND IMAGE DATA.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a video moving direction calculation section”, “a video presentation section”, “a scenery moving direction calculation section”, “a presented video creation section”, “a difference calculation section”, and “a parameter decision section” in claims 1-19 and 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations “a video moving direction calculation section”, “a video presentation section”, “a scenery moving direction calculation section”, “a presented video creation section”, “a difference calculation section”, and “a parameter decision section”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification discloses “sections” in general the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions claimed beyond a general section. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
A claim directed to a computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer program, where the computer readable medium as defined in the specification can be a signal or carrier wave or paper, covers a signal or carrier wave or paper which are non-statutory as noted, infra.
A claim directed to a computer program itself or signal or carrier wave is non-statutory because it is not:
A process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
A machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program, or
A manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enable the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
A composition of matter.
A claim directed to a paper having thereon a computer program is non-statutory, because it covers printed matter which is non-statutory. It is not until the program is converted into an electronic form to be read and executed by the processor that it becomes functional descriptive material. There is no functional relationship between the paper and the computer program (see In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401, In re Lowry ,32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed.Cir.1994)). The program as disclosed is merely printed on the paper, hence the program is merely non-functional descriptive material, therefor, the claimed paper with a computer program printed on it is non-statutory. See Ex parte S, 25 JPOS 904, Ex parte Glenn, 155 USPQ 42 , In re Lockert, 65 F.2d 159, 17 USPQ 515.
See MPEP § 2106.01. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized.
Specifically [0111] of the Specification states: “Additionally, the program can be installed on a computer not only by installing it from the aforementioned removable recording medium 111 but also by downloading it via a communication network or broadcast network and installing it on the internal hard disk 105. That is, programs can be wirelessly transferred to a computer via a digital satellite broadcast satellite from a download site, or transferred to a computer via a network such as a LAN (Local Area Network) or the Internet using a wired connection.” which does not exclude “the program” from being interpreted as a “signal type computer readable storage medium” such as wirelessly transferred signal which is a transitory type medium.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US PGPub 2024/0221569) in view of Vogelmeier et al. (US PGPub 2023/0333636).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a video processing apparatus (fig. 1, in-vehicle display device 10 including a processor 24) comprising:
a video moving direction calculation section that calculates a direction in which a video moves based on a content of a video content displayed by a video presentation section in a vehicle ([0052], “The image content 30 are considered to influence the viewer's carsickness. In particular, the larger the amount of variation in the content of the image content 30, the more likely the viewer is to become carsick. The amount of content variation of the image content 30 represents how much the image (frame) displayed as the image content 30 changes over time, and can be rephrased as the size of the frame-to-frame difference per unit of time. The inter-frame difference can be, for example, the sum of the differences in the pixel values of each pixel between consecutive frames in the time direction”);
a scenery moving direction calculation section that calculates ([0048], “the group of dots 34 can also represent a shape that mimics the actual scenery outside the vehicle”); and
a presented video creation section that creates a video displayed by the video presentation section by applying an effect to the video content based on both the video moving direction and the scenery moving direction ([0053], “the processor 24 changes the ratio between the display area of the image content 30 and the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32 so that the larger the amount of content variation of the image content 30 displayed on the display 12, the smaller the display area of the image content 30 relative to the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32. The ratio between the display area of the image content 30 and the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32 is changed so that the display area of the image content 30 becomes smaller than the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32”).
While Kobayashi discloses calculating scenery data based on information from a camera or from a vehicle speed sensor ([0024]-[0029]), it has been known to calculate a vehicle direction. In a similar field of endeavor of vehicle display devices, Vogelmeier discloses a scenery moving direction calculation section that calculates a direction in which a scenery outside the vehicle moves based on the vehicle's motion ([0040], “When the vehicle performs a certain movement, the background video is concurrently moved in the opposite direction so that the sensory impressions of an operator received from the vestibular systems and the visual impressions of the operator's eyes are congruent. In other words, the control unit generates and modifies the background video data (and the video represented thereby) such that the operator has the visual impression to move with respect to the background video data in correspondence with the actual movement of the vehicle”).
In view of the teachings of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate a direction of a vehicle of Vogelmeier as the specific scenery details of Kobayashi, for the purpose of determining specific vehicle data (in this case direction) to perform the same function of improving a user’s experience by altering display content in order to decrease motion sickness.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the video moving direction is determined based on a central vision region, that is estimated as a center of a vision region of a user viewing the video content in the vehicle, and
the scenery moving direction is determined from a peripheral vision region located outside the central vision region (Kobayashi: [0051], “the image content 30 are displayed in the center of the display 12, and the anti-carsickness content 32 are displayed around the image content 30. This makes it easier for the image content 30 to be located in the effective field of view including the viewer's central field of view and the anti-carsickness content 32 to be located in the viewer's peripheral field of view when the viewer looks at the display part 12”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the central vision region is a content area where the video content is displayed by the video presentation section (Kobayashi: [0051], “the image content 30 are displayed in the center of the display 12”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the presented video creation section applies the effect to the entire video content (Kobayashi: [0059], “On the other hand, when the car sickness tolerance of the viewer is quite low (when the car sickness tolerance <the second car sickness tolerance threshold. Here, the second car sickness tolerance threshold <the first car sickness tolerance threshold), the processor 24 may display the anti-carsickness content 32 on all the screens of the display 12 without displaying the image content 30”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the central vision region is a part of a content area specified based on the user's gaze (Kobayashi: [0051], “The viewer can easily view the image content 30 when the image content 30 are positioned in the effective field of view that includes the central field of view”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the presented video creation section applies the effect to the peripheral vision region outside the central vision region of the video content (Kobayashi: [0051], “In addition, it is said that the peripheral vision is sensitive to movement, and it is expected that the anti-carsickness content 32 will be more effective in suppressing carsickness by the anti-carsickness content 32 when the anti-carsickness content 32 are located in the peripheral vision”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the presented video creation section applies the effect that directs the user's attention to the central vision region to the video content (Vogelmeier: [0074], “This spherical display segment 220 can in general be of any size and be placed at any direction regarding the normal viewing direction of the operator with the following restriction. The spherical display segment 220 is typically steady to the vehicle as well in position as also in size like a real display inside a vehicle. The spherical display segment 220 may be resized and repositioned manually by the operator. Thus, the spherical display segment 220 may serve beside others as visual cue for the movement of the operator relevant to the vehicle. For the case that the spherical display segment 220 would cover too much of the field of view of the operator, an algorithm clips the spherical display segment to a size that enough visual stimuli from the real world sphere 210 are visible in the peripheral view of the operator. The same algorithms may also add vehicle steady geometry, if too less of the spherical display segment is visible”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the presented video creation section applies an effect that reduces an amount of information in the image area where the effect is applied to the video content (Kobayashi: [0049], “By displaying a group of dots 34 moving on the display 12, it is possible to provide visual information of movements similar to those perceived by the viewer as vestibular information. This reduces the difference between the viewer's vestibular information and visual information, and suppresses the viewer's car sickness”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses further comprising:
a difference calculation section that calculates a difference between the video moving direction and the scenery moving direction; and a parameter decision section that determines parameters to be applied to the effect based on the magnitude of the difference, wherein the presented video creation section applies the effect corresponding to the difference to the video content (Kobayashi: [0056], “The effect of the anti-carsickness content 32 is considered to be greater when the luminance of the anti-carsickness content 32 is greater, because the anti-carsickness content 32 becomes more noticeable when the luminance of the anti-carsickness content 32 is greater. Therefore, the processor 24 may increase the luminance of the anti-carsickness content 32 (at least one of the group of dots 34 or the cross icon 36) as the amount of content variation of the image content 30 is larger”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the parameter decision section, when using mosaic as the effect, determines a parameter that specifies a small size for the mosaic when the difference is small, and determines a parameter that specifies a large size for the mosaic when the difference is large (Kobayashi: [0056], “Therefore, the processor 24 may increase the luminance of the anti-carsickness content 32 (at least one of the group of dots 34 or the cross icon 36) as the amount of content variation of the image content 30 is larger”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the parameter decision section, when using a mask as the effect, determines a parameter that specifies a width of the mask as narrow when the difference is small, and determines a parameter that specifies a width of the mask as wide when the difference is large (Kobayashi: [0057], “The processor 24 may also change the ratio between the display area of the image content 30 and the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32 so that the lower the viewer's tolerance for carsickness, the smaller the display area of the image content 30 relative to the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the parameter decision section determines not to apply the effect when the difference is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold (Kobayashi: [0059], “If the viewer's carsickness tolerance is quite high (carsickness tolerance ≥the first carsickness tolerance threshold), the processor 24 may display the image content 30 on the full screen of the display portion 12 without displaying the anti-carsickness content 32. On the other hand, when the car sickness tolerance of the viewer is quite low (when the car sickness tolerance <the second car sickness tolerance threshold. Here, the second car sickness tolerance threshold <the first car sickness tolerance threshold), the processor 24 may display the anti-carsickness content 32 on all the screens of the display 12 without displaying the image content 30. If the viewer's carsickness tolerance is above the second carsickness tolerance threshold and below the first carsickness tolerance threshold, processor 24 may increase the amount of reduction of the image content 30 as the viewer's carsickness tolerance is smaller. In this case, the processor 24 also increases the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32 when the image content 30 is reduced, or the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32 is unchanged”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the video moving direction calculation section calculates the video moving direction based on an optical flow obtained from the content of the video content (Kobayashi: [0052], “The amount of content variation of the image content 30 represents how much the image (frame) displayed as the image content 30 changes over time, and can be rephrased as the size of the frame-to-frame difference per unit of time. The inter-frame difference can be, for example, the sum of the differences in the pixel values of each pixel between consecutive frames in the time direction”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the scenery moving direction calculation section calculates the moving direction of the vehicle based on acceleration data from an acceleration sensor installed on the vehicle, and estimates the scenery moving direction from the moving direction (Kobayashi: [0050], “Processor 24 detects the tilt of the vehicle by means of an acceleration sensor (not shown in FIG. 1) or other sensor provided in the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the scenery moving direction calculation section calculates the scenery moving direction by determining an optical flow from video data obtained from a camera installed on the vehicle (Kobayashi: [0048], “the processor 24 can display the group of dots 34 moving on the display 12 based on a moving image obtained by a camera (not shown in FIG. 1) provided in the vehicle that takes pictures of the area around the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the video moving direction calculation section calculates the video moving direction based on the optical flow obtained from the content of the video content in the central vision region, which is the center of the user's vision region while viewing the video content in the vehicle (Kobayashi: [0052], “The image content 30 are considered to influence the viewer's carsickness. In particular, the larger the amount of variation in the content of the image content 30, the more likely the viewer is to become carsick. The amount of content variation of the image content 30 represents how much the image (frame) displayed as the image content 30 changes over time, and can be rephrased as the size of the frame-to-frame difference per unit of time. The inter-frame difference can be, for example, the sum of the differences in the pixel values of each pixel between consecutive frames in the time direction”), and
the scenery moving direction calculation section calculates the scenery moving direction based on the optical flow obtained from the peripheral vision region, which is the area outside the central vision region, in the video data from the camera (Kobayashi: [0048], “the processor 24 can display the group of dots 34 moving on the display 12 based on a moving image obtained by a camera (not shown in FIG. 1) provided in the vehicle that takes pictures of the area around the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses wherein
the scenery moving direction calculation section divides the peripheral vision region into multiple regions centered on the central vision region and calculates the scenery moving direction for each region (Kobayashi: [0062], “In this case, the viewer may feel annoyed if the group of dots 34 is moving in the difference region 40 that is within the effective field of view that includes the viewer's central field of view. Therefore, the processor 24 may want to make the luminance of the group of dots 34 in the difference region 40 smaller than the luminance of the group of dots 34 displayed in the outer periphery of the difference region 40 (i.e., the area where the group of dots 34 was displayed before the image content 30 was reduced). In FIG. 3, the group of dots 34 in the difference region 40 with a smaller luminance is represented by the shaded group of dots 34”).
Claim 20 is a method claim drawn to the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning.
Claim 21 is a program claim drawn to the apparatus of claim 1 and is therefore interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further discloses a video processing system, comprising:
the sections of claim 1 and therefore interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning; and
the video presentation section that displays the video ([0053], “the processor 24 changes the ratio between the display area of the image content 30 and the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32 so that the larger the amount of content variation of the image content 30 displayed on the display 12, the smaller the display area of the image content 30 relative to the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32. The ratio between the display area of the image content 30 and the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32 is changed so that the display area of the image content 30 becomes smaller than the display area of the anti-carsickness content 32”).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi and Vogelmeier further in view of Berliner et al. (US PGPub 2024/0427471).
Regarding claim 7, while the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier teaches a central and a peripherical field of view (Kobayashi: [0062]), specific types of gaze sensors have been known. In a similar field of endeavor of display devices, Berliner discloses wherein
the user's gaze is detected by a non-contact sensor ([0052], “one or more eye tracking sensors, such as gaze detectors, optical trackers, electric potential trackers (e.g., electrooculogram (EOG) sensors), video-based eye-trackers, infra-red/near infra-red sensors, passive light sensors, or any other technology capable of determining where a human is looking or gazing”).
In view of the teachings of Kobayashi, Vogelmeier and Berliner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the gaze sensor of Berliner to determine viewing direction of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier, where eye tracking sensors have known advantages of being technology capable of determining where a human is looking or gazing (Berliner: [0052]).
Regarding claim 19, while the combination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier discloses determining scenery outside a vehicle, it has been known to determine vibration of a vehicle. In a similar filed of endeavor of display devices, Berliner discloses wherein
the scenery moving direction calculation section corrects the scenery moving direction based on vibration of the vehicle ([0369], “Content localization in moving vehicles may refer to, or include, modifying or adapting the content to be displayed in a moving vehicle such that it is more convenient for a user to see or visualize. For example, content localization in this context may include content stabilization and/or other adjustments to compensate for vehicle and/or user movements and vibrations to keep the displayed virtual content aligned with the real-world environment such that the user can visualize the content comfortably and smoothly”).
In view of the teachings of Kobayashi, Vogelmeier and Berliner it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate vehicle vibrations, as taught by Berliner within the scenery determination of Kobayashi and Vogelmeier, for the purpose of providing content stabilization which improves a user’s experience (Berliner: [0369]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Teslenko et al. (US PGPub 2024/0399869) discloses “Certain challenges, however, exist. Video streaming services (e.g., Netflix) and some games take advantage of the fact that users are located in a vehicle and may want to be entertained. Such services and games, however, may not use specifics of the environment inside or outside of the vehicle. To the contrary, road noise and/or vehicle acceleration may pose a threat to a user's experience when misalignment between virtual entertainment and real physical experience causes discomfort or even motion sickness for the user” ([0024]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY J FRANK whose telephone number is (571)270-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
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, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/EJF/
/BENJAMIN C LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights