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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,311,966. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,311,966 because the presently claimed subject matter is merely an obvious variation of the subject matter claimed therein.
With respect to independent claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,311,966 claims a computer-implemented method for improving vehicle safety via augmented reality including obtaining environmental data indicative of an environment proximate to a vehicle, analyzing the environmental data to determine a location of vehicle safety indicia relative to the vehicle, determining a field of view of an occupant associated with an AR viewer, comparing the location of the vehicle safety indicia with the field of view of the occupant, and presenting an indication of the vehicle safety indicia via the AR viewer. Claim 1 of the patent further determines the occupant field of view using image data generated by an image sensor having a field of view oriented within the vehicle and determining a location of the occupant based upon the image data.
Present claim 1 recites substantially the same vehicle-safety AR process, but more broadly recites obtaining sensor data indicative of an environment external to the vehicle and within the vehicle and analyzing the sensor data to determine both the location of the vehicle safety indicia and the field of view of the occupant. The difference does not render the present claim patentably distinct. The patented claim already obtains environmental data regarding the external vehicle environment and internally oriented image data regarding the occupant and uses such data to determine the relative location of vehicle safety indicia and the occupant field of view before presenting corresponding AR safety information. It would have been an obvious variation of the patented method to characterize the external environmental data and internally oriented occupant image data collectively as sensor data indicative of environments external to and within the vehicle and to analyze such sensor data to make the claimed determinations. Accordingly, present claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the subject matter of the patented claims.
With respect to independent claim 11, claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,311,966 claims a system for improving vehicle safety via augmented reality comprising one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle and one or more non-transitory memories storing processor-executable instructions which cause the system to obtain environmental data indicative of an environment proximate to the vehicle, determine a location of vehicle safety indicia relative to the vehicle, determine a field of view of an occupant associated with an AR viewer using internally oriented image data, compare the location of the vehicle safety indicia with the occupant field of view, and present an indication of the vehicle safety indicia via the AR viewer.
Present claim 11 recites the same processor-and-memory system performing substantially the same AR vehicle-safety functions, differing principally in broadly reciting sensor data indicative of an environment external to and within the vehicle and analyzing that sensor data to determine the occupant field of view rather than expressly requiring the internally oriented image-data and occupant-location steps of patented claim 18. Such broader characterization of the input sensor data and corresponding analysis represents no patentable distinction because patented claim 18 already requires both externally related environmental data and internally oriented sensor data used to establish the occupant field of view. Thus, the presently claimed system would have been an obvious variation of the system claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,311,966.
With respect to independent claim 20, claim 26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,311,966 claims a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle, cause the processors to obtain environmental data indicative of an environment proximate to the vehicle, determine a location of vehicle safety indicia relative to the vehicle, determine a field of view of an occupant associated with an AR viewer using internally oriented image data, compare the vehicle safety indicia location with the occupant field of view, and present an indication of the vehicle safety indicia via the AR viewer.
Present claim 20 recites the same computer-readable-medium implementation and substantially the same vehicle-safety AR processing, with the principal difference again being that present claim 20 more broadly characterizes the information as sensor data indicative of an environment external to the vehicle and within the vehicle and analyzes that sensor data to determine the occupant field of view. Because patented claim 26 already requires external environmental data together with internally oriented image data used to determine the occupant's location and field of view, broadly characterizing such information as sensor data associated with the external and internal vehicle environments would have been an obvious variation and does not impart patentable distinction.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are likewise rejected as not patentably distinct from claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 12,311,966. The additional limitations of the dependent claims represent claimed variations of the same sensor systems, sensor-data sources, AR viewers, vehicle-safety indicia, and vehicle-to-vehicle sensing arrangements encompassed by the patented claims and do not render the presently claimed subject matter patentably distinct from the subject matter claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,311,966.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seder et al. (US 2012/0093357).
Regarding claim 1, Seder teaches a computer-implemented method for improving vehicle safety by presenting vehicle safety indicia to a vehicle occupant via Augmented Reality (AR) by providing an enhanced vision system (EVS) that identifies potentially threatening vehicles and dynamically registers graphical images identifying the potentially threatening vehicles upon a substantially transparent windscreen head-up display such that the occupant views the threatening vehicle and the registered graphical image as a single discernable input (paras. 0006, 0013-0014, 0033, 0040-0041).
Seder teaches obtaining, via one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle, sensor data indicative of an environment external to the vehicle and within the vehicle. Specifically, Seder teaches an on-board EVS system manager 110 having a programmable processor that receives sensor data from vehicle sensor systems including camera system 120, lidar system 127, infrared imaging device 137, radar system 125, GPS device 140, and wireless communication system 145 for monitoring the environment external to the vehicle. Seder further teaches occupant eye location sensing system 160 including sensors for determining the location of the occupant's head and the orientation or gaze location of the occupant's eyes within the vehicle (paras. 0014-0016, 0033).
Seder teaches analyzing, via the one or more processors, the sensor data to determine: a location of a vehicle safety indicia relative to the vehicle. Specifically, Seder teaches a target tracking system 300 that monitors inputs from various sensors and fuses the sensor inputs to continuously determine the current location of a remote or target object, including an identified potentially threatening vehicle, relative to the host vehicle. Seder teaches that camera, radar, lidar, infrared, and vehicle-to-vehicle information may be used individually or in combination to determine the current location of the target object (paras. 0025-0032, 0035). Seder therefore teaches determining the location of the claimed vehicle safety indicia, namely, the identified potentially threatening vehicle, relative to the vehicle.
Seder further teaches analyzing the sensor data to determine a field of view of an occupant of the vehicle associated with an AR viewer. Specifically, Seder teaches that occupant eye location sensing system 160 includes sensors that approximate the location of the occupant's head and the orientation or gaze location of the occupant's eyes. Seder further teaches using a camera-based device and image recognition software to estimate a three-dimensional head location within the vehicle and a direction of the occupant's gaze. Seder teaches that the eye sensing and head sensing devices allow estimation of eye location and dynamic registration of images on the HUD “such that the images correspond to a view of the operator” (paras. 0014-0015, 0033).
Seder teaches based upon a comparison of the location of the vehicle safety indicia and the field of view of the occupant, presenting, via the one or more processors, an indication of the vehicle safety indicia via an AR viewer. Specifically, Seder teaches that dynamically registering the graphic requires monitoring the occupant eye location and/or head location and the current location of the target object. Seder teaches that, “based on the occupant eye location, the current orientation of the vehicle and the current location of the target object,” an estimated point of intersection between the threatening vehicle and the operator's eyes is determined upon the windscreen, thereby enabling the graphical image identifying the threatening vehicle to be dynamically registered at the corresponding location on the substantially transparent windscreen HUD. Seder further teaches dynamically updating the registered graphic based upon the occupant's gaze location, including increasing or decreasing emphasis based on the distance between the occupant's gaze location and the identified potentially threatening vehicle (paras. 0033, 0036-0037; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Seder teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Seder further teaches obtaining, by the one or more processors, at least a portion of the sensor data from a sensor system including a plurality of sensors configured to sense different conditions. Specifically, Seder teaches vehicle sensor systems including camera system 120, lidar system 127, infrared imaging device 137, radar system 125, vehicle operation sensors including vehicle speed sensor 130, GPS device 140, and occupant eye location sensing system 160. These sensors are configured to sense different respective conditions, including visual information, range and location of external objects, infrared radiation, vehicle operating conditions, vehicle location, and occupant head/eye position and gaze (paras. 0014, 0025-0029, 0039).
Regarding claim 4, Seder teaches claim 3 as discussed above. Seder further teaches wherein the plurality of sensors are selected from the group consisting of: an imaging sensor, a photodetector, a global positioning system sensor, a ranging sensor, or an acoustic sensor by teaching camera system 120 (imaging sensor), GPS device 140, and lidar/radar systems 127/125 (ranging sensors) (paras. 0014, 0027-0029).
Regarding claim 5, Seder teaches claim 1 as discussed above. Seder further teaches obtaining, by the one or more processors, at least a portion of the sensor data from a sensor system of a second vehicle by teaching vehicle-to-vehicle communication in which a second vehicle identifies a potentially threatening vehicle using sensors of the second vehicle and transfers that identification to the first vehicle (paras. 0030, 0044).
Regarding claim 9, Seder further teaches wherein the AR viewer is at least one of a smart windshield, a smart window, a smart mirror of the vehicle, or a wearable AR viewer by teaching a substantially transparent windscreen HUD and further teaching that similar transparent displays may be provided on side windows or a rear window of the vehicle (paras. 0014, 0053).
Regarding claim 10, Seder further teaches wherein the vehicle safety indicia is at least one of a presence of ice, a vehicle, a road marking, a road sign, a pot hole, or a pedestrian by teaching graphical identification of potentially threatening vehicles and pedestrians, and further teaching roadway conditions including ice (paras. 0043, 0050-0052).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seder et al. (US 2012/0093357) in view of Blau et al. (US 2022/0324437).
Regarding claim 2, Seder does not expressly teach obtaining, by the one or more processors, at least a portion of the sensor data from a sensor system including at least two sensors each having a different field of view respective to the vehicle.
Blau teaches a vehicle sensor system having multiple image capture devices positioned on the vehicle and expressly teaches a two-camera system in which a first camera and a second camera have different fields of view. Blau further teaches a three-camera system in which each camera has a different field of view relative to the vehicle, such as narrow, wide, and intermediate fields of view (paras. 0136, 0148-0149).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Seder’s vehicle sensor system with at least two sensors having different fields of view, as taught by Blau, to obtain sensor information from different viewing regions and distances around the vehicle, thereby improving environmental coverage and object detection.
Claim 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seder et al. (US 2012/0093357) in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0156925).
Regarding claim 6, Seder does not expressly teach obtaining, by the one or more processors, at least a portion of the sensor data from a smart infrastructure device.
Lee teaches a tunnel-light infrastructure system having sensor 520 configured to detect smoke, humidity, and temperature inside or outside the tunnel and generate tunnel environment data, wherein controller 530 provides the tunnel environment data to tunnel-light apparatus 400 for transmission to vehicles (paras. 0062, 0069-0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seder to obtain environmental sensor data from a smart infrastructure device, as taught by Lee, to provide additional roadway-environment information useful for identifying hazardous conditions and improving vehicle safety.
Regarding claim 7, Lee further teaches wherein at least the portion of the sensor data is obtained from the smart infrastructure device via visible light communication. Specifically, Lee teaches tunnel-light apparatus 400 transmitting tunnel environment data generated by sensor 520 to a vehicle through transmit tunnel light 410 using visible light communication (paras. 0045-0047, 0062, 0066, 0069-0073, 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to communicate the infrastructure sensor data to Seder's vehicle using visible light communication, as taught by Lee, to provide environmental safety information to the vehicle using the existing tunnel-light infrastructure.
Claims 8, 11, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seder et al. (US 2012/0093357 A1) in view of Giraud (US 2017/0017766 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Seder does not expressly teach obtaining, by the one or more processors, at least a portion of the sensor data from a personal electronic device associated with an occupant of the vehicle.
Giraud teaches passengers on-board a vehicle carrying personal electronic devices, including smartphones and wearable devices, having sensors that generate sensor information, and teaches the vehicle's on-board computing system receiving sensor measurements from those personal electronic devices (paras. 0017-0021, 0023-0026, 0036, 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seder to obtain sensor data from a personal electronic device associated with the vehicle occupant, as taught by Giraud, to provide additional occupant-related sensor information to the vehicle system.
Regarding claim 11, Seder teaches a system for improving vehicle safety via Augmented Reality (AR) including an EVS system manager 110 having a programmable processor on-board vehicle 100, together with vehicle sensors, occupant eye-location sensing system 160, and HUD 150 (paras. 0013-0016).
Seder teaches one or more processors of an electronic device on-board a vehicle by teaching EVS system manager 110 including a programmable processor on-board vehicle 100 (para. 0014).
Seder teaches obtaining sensor data indicative of an environment external to the vehicle and within the vehicle by receiving external-environment data from camera system 120, lidar system 127, IR imaging device 137, and radar system 125, and internal occupant data from occupant eye-location sensing system 160 (paras. 0014, 0033).
Seder teaches analyzing the sensor data to determine a location of a vehicle safety indicia relative to the vehicle by determining the current location of a target object, including a potentially threatening vehicle, relative to the host vehicle using fused sensor inputs (paras. 0025-0032, 0035).
Seder teaches determining a field of view of an occupant of the vehicle associated with an AR viewer by using occupant eye-location sensing system 160 to determine the occupant’s head location and eye orientation/gaze direction, thereby allowing displayed graphics to correspond to the occupant’s view (paras. 0014-0015, 0033).
Seder teaches based upon a comparison of the location of the vehicle safety indicia and the field of view of the occupant, present an indication of the vehicle safety indicia via an AR viewer by determining, based on the occupant eye location and current location of the threatening target, an intersection on the windshield and dynamically registering the graphical indication at that location; Seder further adjusts the graphical indication based on the distance between the occupant’s gaze location and the threatening vehicle (paras. 0033, 0036-0037).
Seder does not expressly teach one or more non-transitory memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform the recited functions.
Giraud teaches a computing system having a logic subsystem including one or more processors and a storage subsystem including physical, non-transitory memory devices storing instructions executable by the processors to perform system functions (paras. 0080-0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Seder’s programmable on-board vehicle system with non-transitory memory storing processor-executable instructions, as taught by Giraud, to store and execute the programming used to perform Seder’s vehicle-safety functions.
Regarding claim 13, see rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, see rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, Seder teaches an on-board programmable vehicle system configured to obtain sensor data indicative of the external vehicle environment and the occupant, including data from camera, lidar, IR, radar, and occupant eye-location sensors (paras. 0014-0016, 0033).
Seder teaches analyzing the sensor data to determine a location of a vehicle safety indicia relative to the vehicle by determining the current location of a target object, including a potentially threatening vehicle, relative to the host vehicle using sensor inputs (paras. 0025-0032, 0035).
Seder teaches determining a field of view of an occupant of the vehicle associated with an AR viewer by determining the occupant's head location and eye orientation/gaze direction so that displayed graphics correspond to the occupant's view (paras. 0014-0015, 0033).
Seder further teaches based upon a comparison of the location of the vehicle safety indicia and the field of view of the occupant, present an indication of the vehicle safety indicia via an AR viewer by determining, based on occupant eye location and target location, an intersection on the windshield and dynamically registering a graphical indication of the threatening vehicle; Seder further adjusts the graphic based on the distance between the occupant's gaze location and the threatening vehicle (paras. 0033, 0036-0037).
Seder does not expressly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors cause the recited functions.
Giraud teaches a storage subsystem including physical non-transitory memory devices storing instructions executable by one or more processors to implement computer-performed functions (paras. 0080-0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store Seder's vehicle-safety programming as executable instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, as taught by Giraud, to provide persistent storage and execution of Seder's disclosed processing functions.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seder et al. (US 2012/0093357 A1) in view of Giraud (US 2017/0017766 A1), and further in view of Blau et al. (US 2022/0324437 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Seder and Giraud teach the system of claim 11 as discussed above, but do not expressly teach instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to obtain at least a portion of the sensor data from a sensor system including at least two sensors each having a different field of view respective to the vehicle.
Blau teaches a vehicle sensor system having multiple image capture devices and expressly teaches a two-camera system in which the first and second cameras have different fields of view, and a three-camera system in which each camera has a different field of view relative to the vehicle (paras. 0136, 0148-0149).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensor system of Seder and Giraud with at least two sensors having different fields of view, as taught by Blau, to obtain sensor information from different viewing regions and distances around the vehicle, thereby improving environmental coverage and object detection.
Claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seder et al. (US 2012/0093357 A1) in view of Giraud (US 2017/0017766 A1), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0156925).
Regarding claim 16, see rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Petit et al (US 2023/0111436) abstract and Fig. 1-4
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights