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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the font on the figures is not clear. 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.
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, 6-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0054104 A1 to Hayashi et al.
As to claim 1, Hayashi discloses an information processing system for a vehicle, comprising:
an image generation unit configured to generate an image in response to an input command (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0047-0051, where information processing unit (13) generates an image in response to an input from input unit (11));
a communication unit configured to receive and transmit the image generated by the image generation unit and an image-related information based on the input command (Fig. 1, paragraph 0050, where communication unit (12) communicates with information processing unit (13));
a projection unit coupled to the communication unit and configured to project the image based on the image-related information (Fig. 1 and 2, paragraphs 0052 and 0059, where projector (20) is connected to communication unit (12) via information processing unit (13)); and
a flexible display unit configured to stretch out or retract under control of a control switch, wherein the flexible display unit stretches out and displays the image projected by the projection unit when the control switch is turned on, and the flexible display unit retracts and does not display the image when the control switch is turned off (Fig. 1-4, paragraphs 0053-0072, where shape determination unit (152) determines the shape of screens (31, 32) and controls shape output unit (14) change the shape of screens (31, 32)).
As to claim 2, Hayashi discloses the information processing system, further comprising a monitoring device, wherein the monitoring device comprising:
one or more sensors configured to monitor at least one of a characteristic information of an operator of the vehicle and an environmental information of the vehicle (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0048-0049, where input unit (11) are various sensors);
an event determination unit configured to determine whether a predetermined event has occurred based on at least one of the information monitored by the one or more sensors and a driving mode of the vehicle received by the monitoring device (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0048-0051, where information processing unit (13) determines an event based on input from input unit (11)); and
an event notification unit configured to generate a notification indicating the occurrence of the predetermined event and transmit the notification to the image generation unit for visual display, in a case that the event determination unit determines that the predetermined event has occurred (Fig. 1 and 17, paragraphs 0057 and 0104, where image creation unit (153) generates a notification such as the distance to destination as shown in Fig. 17).
As to claim 3, Hayashi discloses the information processing system, wherein the characteristic information of the operator comprises at least one of a posture, a voice, and an eye movement of the operator (Fig. 1, paragraph 0049, where input unit (11) receives an input from voice or gestures).
As to claim 6, Hayashi discloses the information processing system, wherein the image-related information comprises at least one of a priority information and an event notification information (Fig. 10 and 17, paragraphs 0096 and 0104, where screen (32) shows information on the left and right).
As to claim 7, Hayashi discloses the information processing system, wherein the event notification information comprises at least one of a notification indicating occurrence of an event and the urgency of the event (Fig. 10 and 17, paragraphs 0096 and 0104, where screen (32) shows directions on the left which is urgent).
As to claim 8, Hayashi discloses the information processing system, wherein the priority information and the urgency of the event is preset (Fig. 10 and 17, paragraphs 0096 and 0104, where screen (32) shows directions on the left which is urgent).
As to claim 9, Hayashi discloses the information processing system, wherein the communication unit comprises at least one of an optical system, a wireless communication system, and a wired communication system (Fig. 1, paragraph 0050, where communication unit (12) is connected wirelessly or wired via network interface card (NIC)).
As to claim 11, Hayashi discloses the information processing system, wherein the projection unit is configured to differentially project the image based on one of the priority information and the urgency of the event (Fig. 1, 2, 10 and 17, paragraphs 0059-0060, 0096 and 0104, where projector (20) projects the image in Fig. 17 onto screen (32)).
As to claim 12, Hayashi discloses the information processing system, wherein the image generation unit is further configured to generate the image in response to at least one of the input command and an input image from an external device connected to the vehicle (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0047-0057, where image creation unit (153) generates an image based on an input from input unit (11) and communication unit (12)).
As to claim 13, Hayashi discloses the information processing system, wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (Paragraph 0141).
As to claims 14-19, Hayashi discloses limitations similar to claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 12, respectively.
As to claim 20, Hayashi discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a program, wherein the program, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform the information processing method according to claim 14 (Fig. 1, paragraphs 0051-0055, where content acquisition unit (151) acquires content from a storage device and is part of display control unit (15), which is a CPU).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0054104 A1 to Hayashi et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0315275 A1 to Kim et al.
As to claim 4, Hayashi is deficient in disclosing the information processing system, wherein the one or more sensors monitor an eye movement of the operator.
However, Kim discloses the information processing system, wherein the one or more sensors monitor an eye movement of the operator (Fig. 4, paragraph 0127, where interior camera (22) detects driver eyes and acquires gaze information).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the information processing system for a vehicle as taught by Hayashi by including one or more sensors to monitor eye movement of an operator as taught by Kim. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to change the position of information displayed based on the gaze (Kim, paragraphs 0127-0130).
As to claim 5, Hayashi is deficient in disclosing the information processing system, wherein
the event determination unit determines whether an eyeball deviation event has occurred based on the information of the eye movement of the operator monitored by the one or more sensors;
wherein, the event determination unit determines that the eyeball deviation event has occurred, in a case of determining that eyeballs of the operator deviate from an eyebox region of a head up display device arranged on the vehicle; and
wherein, the event notification unit generates, when determining that the eyeball deviation event has occurred, a notification indicating the occurrence of the eyeball deviation event.
However, Kim discloses the information processing system, wherein
the event determination unit determines whether an eyeball deviation event has occurred based on the information of the eye movement of the operator monitored by the one or more sensors (Fig. 2-4, paragraphs 0125-0131, where controller (190) determines if an eyeball deviation event has occurred based on the image from interior camera (22));
wherein, the event determination unit determines that the eyeball deviation event has occurred, in a case of determining that eyeballs of the operator deviate from an eyebox region of a head up display device arranged on the vehicle (Fig. 2-4, paragraphs 0125-0131, where controller (190) determines the gaze (S) has changed on display (171)); and
wherein, the event notification unit generates, when determining that the eyeball deviation event has occurred, a notification indicating the occurrence of the eyeball deviation event (Fig. 2-4, paragraphs 0125-0131, where information (301) is moved based on the change of gaze (S)). In addition, the same motivation is used as claim 4.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0054104 A1 to Hayashi et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0349098 A1 to Uhm.
As to claim 10, Hayashi is deficient in disclosing the information processing system, wherein the flexible display unit is arranged in front of a front windshield of the vehicle and is transparent.
However, Uhm discloses the information processing system, wherein the flexible display unit is arranged in front of a front windshield of the vehicle and is transparent (Fig. 21, paragraphs 0308-0314, where transparent flexible display (441) is arranged in front of a windshield).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the information processing system for a vehicle as taught by Hayashi by including the flexible display unit is arranged in front of a windshield and is transparent as taught by Uhm. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order for the drive to be able to see through the transparent display while driving (Uhm, paragraphs 0308-0314).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEETA YODICHKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-9773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
ANEETA YODICHKAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/ANEETA YODICHKAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights