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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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: Vehicle Navigation System Integrating Head-Up Display and Ground Projection.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) obtaining navigation or auxiliary driving information, analyzing display conditions based on predefined rules (including environmental conditions, driver-related parameters, content attributes, and system status conditions), and selecting between different display outputs for presenting the information using vehicle-based display systems such as a head-up display (HUD) and a pixel-based projection system. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea using generic vehicle-based processing and display components that perform their ordinary functions of collecting information, executing conditional logic, and outputting display results without improving computer functionality, display technology, or vehicle system operation. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited components, including processors, controllers, display units, sensors, driver monitoring systems, and memory, are generic and perform routine and conventional data processing, rule evaluation, and display control functions without any inventive implementation or technological improvement.
Claims 1–19 are directed to an abstract idea, specifically:
collecting and processing navigation/auxiliary driving information
rule-based decision-making for selecting display mode (HUD vs pixel projection)
information presentation based on predefined conditions
The claims recite:
obtaining vehicle navigation or auxiliary driving data (e.g., image information, vehicle status, environmental inputs)
evaluating predefined rules such as display pixel thresholds, power consumption thresholds, driver state conditions, privacy conditions, and environmental brightness conditions
selecting between different output display modes (HUD display vs pixel-based ground projection display)
These are abstract because they represent:
mental processes (conditional decision-making)
data processing and organization (rule-based filtering and classification of information)
generalized information presentation logic
Even though performed in a vehicle environment, the underlying operations remain abstract information-handling steps.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
the claims merely use generic vehicle subsystems (HUD, pixel lamp/projector, controller, sensors) to execute abstract decision logic
the display selection rules (complexity thresholds, size thresholds, density thresholds, driver identity, and privacy classification) are implemented as software-driven conditions without improving the underlying display hardware
the system does not provide a technological improvement to HUD projection technology, pixel projection accuracy, or vehicle sensing architecture
Instead, the claims merely apply the abstract idea of rule-based information selection using conventional vehicle components, without altering their technical operation.
The use of multiple display devices and sensors only provides an environment in which the abstract idea is performed, rather than improving that environment.
The additional elements include:
generic processor and integrated controller
HUD display unit and pixel-based projection lamp
image collector, sensors, and driver monitoring system (DMS)
memory and software modules executing rules
These components are:
well-understood
routine
conventional in vehicle display and driver assistance systems
When considered individually and as an ordered combination, they:
perform expected functions such as collecting data, evaluating conditions, and outputting display signals
do not improve computer functionality or display technology
do not provide a technical solution to a technological problem in a novel way
merely automate conventional decision-making and display selection processes
Accordingly, Claims 1–19 do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) instructions for obtaining navigation or auxiliary driving information, applying rule-based conditions to determine display eligibility (including environmental, driver-related, informational attribute, and system status constraints), and controlling output of selected display information using vehicle display systems such as a head-up display (HUD) and a pixel-based projection system. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea using generic computing and vehicle display components that perform their ordinary functions of executing instructions, processing data, and controlling output displays without improving computer functionality, display technology, or vehicle system operation. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited components, including processors, non-transitory computer-readable medium, controllers, and display interfaces, are generic and perform routine and conventional computing functions without any inventive implementation or technological improvement.
Claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea, specifically:
data processing steps
rule-based decision-making for display selection
information presentation and output control logic
The claim recites:
storing instructions on a non-transitory computer-readable medium
executing rules for determining whether auxiliary driving information satisfies display conditions
selecting between HUD and pixel projection display outputs based on predefined thresholds and conditions
These are abstract because they represent:
mental processes (decision-making logic)
data manipulation and classification
generalized instructions for information handling and presentation
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the instructions are executed on a generic computing platform without improving processor operation
the display selection merely uses conventional HUD and projection systems in their expected manner
no improvement is made to vehicle display technology, rendering systems, or sensor architecture
The claim simply applies abstract decision logic in a vehicle environment without any technological enhancement.
The additional elements include:
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
generic processor and controller
standard vehicle display interfaces (HUD and pixel projection system)
These are:
well-understood
routine
conventional computing and display components
Individually and in combination, they:
execute standard storage, retrieval, processing, and display functions
do not improve computer performance or vehicle display technology
do not introduce an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea itself
Therefore, Claim 20 does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kunii et al. (US 2020/0231085).
Claim 1
"A navigation method, comprising: obtaining navigation information of a vehicle..."
KUNII discloses a light control ECU that receives information, including "so-called navigation information that is information from a navigation device which performs route guidance and the like". This is explicitly taught in paragraph [0068].
"displaying, by a first apparatus, the first navigation identifier in front of the vehicle"
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the "first apparatus" is a projection device. KUNII discloses that "one or plural (for example, a pair of) projectors may be mounted on the vehicle". Paragraph [0082], explains that these projectors display images (navigation identifiers) "ahead of the vehicle".
"displaying, by a second apparatus, the second navigation identifier on a ground in front of the vehicle"
KUNII describes a system where "different images may be projected from the left and right image projection apparatuses 500". Paragraph [0082], Page 6, establishes that these apparatuses project onto the "road surface" (ground) in front of the vehicle.
"wherein the first navigation identifier and the second navigation identifier are displayed synchronously and jointly display the navigation information."
Paragraph [0082], explicitly states that images from the projection apparatuses are "synthesized together on the road surface or the like" and describes "an image obtained by dividing the desired image into left and right" being displayed by the projectors. This synthesis requires the identifiers to be displayed synchronously to jointly present the navigation information.
Claim 2
"displaying, by the first apparatus and when a preset condition is met the second navigation identifier in front of the vehicle."
KUNII discloses that the projection timing and content are controlled based on preset vehicle conditions, such as "when the vehicle 10 is approaching an intersection". KUNII further teaches that the projection system utilizes "one or plural (for example, a pair of) projectors" that are controlled to synthesize images on the road surface. Because KUNII discloses a system where multiple projectors are controlled by the same unit to synthesize navigation information, the configuration of the first apparatus to display a navigation identifier upon a preset condition is explicitly taught by the system's operational logic. [0091], [0082]
Claim 10
"An apparatus, comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; at least one processor... configured to... obtain navigation information..."
KUNII discloses a "light control ECU 40" which comprises "a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 41, RAM 42 and ROM 43 as storage means". The ECU is configured to receive navigation information from a navigation device as described in paragraph [0065] and [0068].
"display, using a first apparatus, the first navigation identifier... and display, using a second apparatus, the second navigation identifier on a ground in front of the vehicle"
As established in the analysis of Claim 1, KUNII teaches using a "pair of" projection apparatuses to project images onto the road surface. This is explicitly disclosed in paragraph [0082].
"wherein the first navigation identifier and the second navigation identifier are displayed synchronously and [are] used to jointly display the navigation information."
The explicit disclosure of synthesizing divided images (left and right) from the projectors into a single image on the road surface is found in paragraph [0082]. This confirms the synchronous and joint display requirement of the claim.
Claim 20
"A computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-executable instructions... cause the apparatus to..."
KUNII describes the functionality of the light control ECU 40, which includes ROM 43 (storage medium) storing data/instructions to control the image projection apparatus 500. Paragraph [0065] and [0070], detail that the control unit receives signals and executes the projection of images based on the navigation information.
Mapping: The computer-executable instructions in KUNII perform the same steps of obtaining navigation information, and displaying synchronously/jointly using first and second apparatuses, as set forth in the analysis of Claims 1 and 10 above.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 3,7-9,11-12,16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunii et al. (US 2020/0231085).
Claim 3:
Limitation: "adjusting a property of the first navigation identifier (e.g., size, color, or shape) based on detected sensor data (e.g., vehicle speed or road surface condition)."
KUNII discloses that the projection system adjusts the displayed information based on vehicle sensor data. Specifically, paragraph [0091] explains that the projection timing and content are controlled based on conditions such as vehicle position and surrounding environment. Furthermore, paragraph [0102] teaches that the "display mode" (e.g., size, position, or content) is dynamically adjusted based on the vehicle's state (e.g., speed or proximity to objects). This constitutes the adjustment of the identifier’s properties based on detected sensor data.
Conclusion: The disclosure in KUNII anticipates Claim 3. KUNII describes a control unit that receives sensor data (e.g., from a navigation device or vehicle communication unit) and adjusts the output of the image projection apparatus accordingly. Because KUNII teaches the dynamic modification of projected images based on vehicle state and environmental conditions to assist the driver, it inherently teaches adjusting properties of a navigation identifier based on detected sensor data.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
In the alternative, if the claim is construed to require a specific type of sensor adjustment not explicitly described in KUNII, the rejection is maintained under § 103. It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to adjust the properties of the projected navigation identifier—such as size or color—based on vehicle speed or road conditions to improve visibility and driver responsiveness. Adjusting visual output based on environmental and vehicle variables is a well-established practice in automotive display systems. KUNII provides the foundational motivation for dynamically controlling the projection apparatus, and modifying the control logic to vary identifier properties based on sensor input would involve nothing more than the predictable application of known control techniques to achieve the expected result of enhanced navigational clarity. It would be an implementation of use of know techniques to improve similar device in the same way.
Claim 7:
"wherein the first navigation identifier comprises a second route guide identifier, and wherein the second navigation identifier comprises a third route guide identifier."
KUNII discloses an image projection apparatus capable of synthesizing navigation information from multiple projectors onto a road surface. However, KUNII does not explicitly disclose the specific nomenclature or structural limitation of a "second route guide identifier" and a "third route guide identifier."
However KUNII teaches: a control system that generates navigation information from a navigation device and divides it into parts for display by a "pair of" projectors. The system inherently manages multiple segments of the navigation information (e.g., portions of a route guide) to be projected by different apparatuses.
Modification: It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to characterize these divided parts of the navigation information as distinct "identifiers" (e.g., a second and third route guide identifier) corresponding to the specific portions of the route guidance being projected by the first and second apparatuses.
Motivation: The claim language merely describes the functional outcome of the image division taught by KUNII. It is standard practice in the art to delineate complex guidance images into distinct graphical segments for separate projection. Labeling these segments is a matter of descriptive clarity that does not alter the fundamental operation of the system described in KUNII.
Predictable Result: Assigning labels to the components of the divided route guide image is a predictable design choice. The result—providing discrete portions of a route guide through different apparatuses—is exactly the process taught by the system in KUNII.
Conclusion
Because the designation of navigation identifiers as "route guide identifiers" represents a descriptive categorization of the functions already performed by the system in KUNII.
Claim 8:
"wherein the second route guide identifier comprises a route guide arrow, and wherein the third route guide identifier comprises a route guide area."
KUNII discloses an image projection apparatus capable of synthesizing navigation information from multiple projectors onto a road surface. However, KUNII does not explicitly disclose the specific graphical configuration or nomenclature of a "route guide arrow" and a "route guide area" as the specific identifiers for the claimed route guidance segments.
However: KUNII teaches a control system that generates navigation information and divides it into segments for display by a pair of projectors. The system is configured to display standard navigational data, such as route guidance information.
Modification: It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to represent the navigational segments taught by KUNII using standard graphical user interface (GUI) elements well-known in the automotive navigation art, such as directional arrows for route indication and shaded or bounded areas for lane or destination guidance.
Motivation: The use of arrows and area-based identifiers is a standard practice in navigation displays to intuitively convey directional and spatial information to the driver. By utilizing these common graphical representations within the projection system taught by KUNII, a designer improves the clarity and effectiveness of the route guidance provided.
Predictable Result: Substituting generic navigation indicators with industry-standard graphical elements (arrows and areas) is a predictable design choice. A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART would recognize that these elements provide the exact functional output (route guidance) intended by the system described in KUNII.
Conclusion
Because the use of specific graphical icons—such as arrows and areas—to represent navigation guidance is a standard, predictable technical solution within the field of automotive navigation displays, the limitation in Claim 8 represents an obvious modification of the system taught in KUNII.
Claim 9:
"wherein the second route guide identifier comprises a first part of a target route guide identifier, and wherein the third route guide identifier comprises a second part of the target route guide identifier."
The disclosure in KUNII anticipates the limitation of Claim 9. KUNII expressly describes a system in which "different images may be projected from the left and right image projection apparatuses 500 and synthesized together on the road surface"]. The reference further specifies that the system achieves this by displaying "an image obtained by dividing the desired image into left and right"]. This "desired image" represents the "target route guide identifier" of the claim, and the "left and right" portions projected by the apparatuses correspond exactly to the "first part" and "second part" of the target image claimed. [0082] Therefore, the limitation is fully anticipated.
In the alternative, if the claim were construed to require a specific architectural partition of the route guide identifier not explicitly detailed in KUNII, the rejection is maintained under § 103 as obvious over KUNII.
However, KUNII teaches the fundamental technique of dividing a target navigation image into multiple discrete segments for projection by distinct hardware apparatuses].
Modification: It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to design the target navigation image (the "target route guide identifier") such that it is composed of identifiable parts (the second and third identifiers) to be reassembled by the projectors disclosed in KUNII.
Motivation: The separation of a single graphical element into distinct parts for parallel projection is a well-known technical strategy for handling resolution constraints, increasing display area, or managing hardware limitations in automotive projection. A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART would find it obvious to apply this image-division technique specifically to route guide elements to ensure high-fidelity projection of the navigation content.
Predictable Result: This results in the same predictable function taught in KUNII: synthesizing divided segments into a single, cohesive navigation image on the road surface.
Conclusion
Because the explicit teaching of "dividing the desired image into left and right" segments for synthesis by multiple projectors (as taught in KUNII, ¶[0082]) fully anticipates the limitation of Claim 9, the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Even if one were to argue for a difference in terminology, the claim represents an obvious configuration of the known image-synthesis techniques described in the prior art.
Claim 11:
"the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to display, when a preset condition is met, the second navigation identifier in front of the vehicle using the first apparatus."
KUNII anticipates the limitation of Claim 11. KUNII discloses a light control ECU (apparatus) that includes a processor and storage (memory). This ECU is configured to control the projection of images based on preset conditions, such as "when the vehicle 10 is approaching an intersection". KUNII further discloses that the system utilizes "one or plural (for example, a pair of) projectors". Because the control unit is designed to synthesize images from these projectors based on vehicle state conditions, it inherently possesses the configuration to command a specific projector (the "first apparatus") to display a specific portion of the navigation information (the "second navigation identifier") when the preset condition is met. The software/instructions executing on the processor in KUNII provide the necessary configuration to achieve the functionality claimed. [0082], [0091].
In the alternative, if the claim were construed to require a specific configuration of the processor to assign tasks between the projectors that is not explicitly detailed in KUNII, the claim is unpatentable over KUNII under § 103.
Rationale: KUNII teaches a sophisticated image projection system controlled by a processor that dynamically adjusts projection parameters (timing, content, and synthesis) based on vehicle sensor data.
Modification: It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART) to configure the control instructions to assign the display of specific identifiers (e.g., the second navigation identifier) to specific projection hardware (e.g., the first apparatus) upon the satisfaction of preset vehicle conditions.
Motivation: This is a predictable design choice in the field of automotive control systems. Flexibility in assigning display tasks to specific projection units allows for optimized driver visibility and system load balancing. Modifying the software of the ECU to trigger a projector based on defined conditions is a routine implementation of the control logic taught in KUNII.
Predictable Result: The result—maintaining clear navigational guidance through intelligent task allocation between projectors—is a predictable and desired outcome of the navigation system described in KUNII.
Conclusion
Because the explicit teaching of using a controlled processor to manage multiple projection apparatuses based on environmental and vehicle conditions (as taught in KUNII, ¶[0091], ¶[0082]) fully encompasses the claimed apparatus configuration, the limitation in Claim 11 is anticipated by or obvious over the prior art.
Claim 12:
"wherein the at least one processor is further configured to... display... the first navigation identifier in a non-ground area in front of the vehicle."
KUNII discloses an image projection apparatus configured to project images onto a "road surface". KUNII does not explicitly disclose or teach the specific limitation of displaying a navigation identifier in a "non-ground area in front of the vehicle" (such as a wall, traffic sign, or aerial feature). Therefore, Claim 12 is not anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
However: The primary reference, KUNII, teaches the use of an image projection apparatus to display navigation information to a driver to assist in route guidance. KUNII teaches that the projection apparatus can be mounted on the vehicle and is capable of projecting images into the driver's field of view in front of the vehicle.
Modification: It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to configure the processor-controlled projection apparatus to display navigation identifiers on surfaces other than the road surface (a "non-ground area"), such as walls, signs, or other vertical structures in front of the vehicle, to improve the visibility of the navigation information or to accommodate driving environments where road surface projection is suboptimal.
Motivation: Such a modification is a predictable variation of the known projection system taught in KUNII. Adapting an automotive projection system to project onto non-ground areas is a well-known alternative in the art to ensure the driver receives navigation prompts regardless of the specific nature of the terrain, road surface conditions, or environmental obstructions. This modification would result in the same predictable function: displaying navigation identifiers in front of the vehicle to assist the driver.
Conclusion
Because the modification of the projection surface (from the road to a non-ground area) constitutes a predictable variation of the projection system disclosed in KUNII, the limitation in Claim 12 represents an obvious technical choice.
Claim 16:
"wherein the first navigation identifier comprises a second route guide identifier, and wherein the second navigation identifier comprises a third route guide identifier."
KUNII discloses an image projection apparatus capable of synthesizing navigation information from multiple projectors onto a road surface. However, KUNII does not explicitly disclose the specific nomenclature or structural limitation of a "second route guide identifier" and a "third route guide identifier."
However: KUNII teaches a control system (light control ECU 40) that generates navigation information from a navigation device and divides it into parts for display by a "pair of" projectors. The system inherently manages multiple segments of the navigation information (e.g., portions of a route guide) to be projected by different apparatuses.
Modification: It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to characterize these divided parts of the navigation information as distinct "identifiers" (e.g., a second and third route guide identifier) corresponding to the specific portions of the route guidance being projected by the first and second apparatuses.
Motivation: The claim language merely describes the functional outcome of the image division taught by KUNII. It is standard practice in the art to delineate complex guidance images into distinct graphical segments for separate projection. Labeling these segments is a matter of descriptive clarity that does not alter the fundamental operation of the system described in KUNII.
Predictable Result: Assigning labels to the components of the divided route guide image is a predictable design choice. The result—providing discrete portions of a route guide through different apparatuses—is exactly the process taught by the system in KUNII.
Conclusion
Because the designation of navigation identifiers as "route guide identifiers" represents a descriptive categorization of the functions already performed by the system in KUNII, the limitation in Claim 16 represents an obvious variation.
Claim 17:
KUNII discloses an image projection apparatus capable of synthesizing navigation information from multiple projectors onto a road surface. However, KUNII does not explicitly disclose the specific graphical configuration or nomenclature of a "route guide arrow" and a "route guide area" as the specific identifiers for the claimed route guidance segments.
However: KUNII teaches an apparatus (light control ECU 40) that controls a pair of projectors to synthesize navigation images. The system is configured to provide visual route guidance to a driver.
Modification: It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to implement the navigational guidance segments taught by KUNII using industry-standard graphical elements, specifically designating one element as a "route guide arrow" (for directional instruction) and another as a "route guide area" (for spatial or lane guidance).
Motivation: The use of arrow indicators to show direction and area-based indicators (e.g., highlighting a lane, intersection, or target area) is a foundational, well-known practice in the design of automotive head-up and projection displays. A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART would recognize that these specific graphical formats provide intuitive and clear information to the driver. Implementing these standard GUI conventions within the multi-projector system of KUNII is a routine design choice aimed at enhancing the usability of the navigation system.
Predictable Result: The result—a navigation display utilizing clear directional arrows and spatial area guides—is the predictable outcome of applying standard UI/UX principles to the underlying image synthesis hardware described in KUNII.
Conclusion
Because the use of standard navigational iconography (arrows and area highlights) to convey route guidance is a predictable and widely accepted practice in the art, the limitation in Claim 17 represents an obvious modification of the system taught in KUNII.
Claim 18:
"wherein the second route guide identifier comprises a first part of a target route guide identifier, and wherein the third route guide identifier comprises a second part of the target route guide identifier."
The disclosure in KUNII anticipates the limitation of Claim 18. KUNII expressly describes a system in which "different images may be projected from the left and right image projection apparatuses 500 and synthesized together on the road surface". The reference further specifies that the system achieves this by displaying "an image obtained by dividing the desired image into left and right". This "desired image" corresponds to the "target route guide identifier" of the claim, and the "left and right" portions projected by the apparatuses correspond exactly to the "first part" and "second part" of the target image claimed.
In the alternative, if the claim were construed to require a specific architectural partition of the route guide identifier not explicitly detailed in KUNII, the rejection is maintained under § 103 as obvious over KUNII.
KUNII teaches the fundamental technique of dividing a target navigation image into multiple discrete segments for projection by distinct hardware apparatuses.
Modification: It would have been obvious at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claim invention was made to design the target navigation image (the "target route guide identifier") such that it is composed of identifiable parts (the second and third identifiers) to be reassembled by the projectors disclosed in KUNII.
Motivation: The separation of a single graphical element into distinct parts for parallel projection is a well-known technical strategy for handling resolution constraints, increasing display area, or managing hardware limitations in automotive projection. A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART would find it obvious to apply this image-division technique specifically to route guide elements to ensure high-fidelity projection of the navigation content.
Predictable Result: This results in the same predictable function taught in KUNII: synthesizing divided segments into a single, cohesive navigation image on the road surface.
Conclusion
Because the explicit teaching of "dividing the desired image into left and right" segments for synthesis by multiple projectors (as taught in KUNII, ¶[0082]) fully anticipates the limitation of Claim 18, the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Even if one were to argue for a difference in terminology, the claim represents an obvious configuration of the known image-synthesis techniques described in the prior art.
Claim 19:
"first apparatus comprises a head up display (HUD) apparatus" and "second apparatus comprises a vehicle light comprising a plurality of independently controllable projection units."
KUNII discloses an image projection apparatus capable of synthesizing navigation images from multiple projectors. However, KUNII does not explicitly disclose the combination of a HUD and a vehicle light with independently controllable projection units.
In view of the well-known practice of integrating multiple display technologies in automotive cockpits:
KUNII teaches a projection system utilizing "image projection apparatuses" (e.g., headlights) to provide navigational information. A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART, at the time of the invention, would have been aware of the standardized automotive display ecosystem, which frequently combines windshield-projected HUDs (for immediate driver-centric data like speed/direction) with road-surface projection systems (for environmental-centric data like lane guidance/path marking).
Modification: It would have been an obvious design choice to supplement the road-surface projection system taught by KUNII with a HUD apparatus to provide a multi-layered information display.
Motivation: The motivation to combine these technologies is to optimize driver attention. HUDs excel at providing high-priority, "eyes-on-road" dashboard information, whereas ground projection systems excel at providing contextual, path-dependent information. Combining these systems allows the vehicle to present a comprehensive navigation suite, which is a predictable improvement in automotive HMI (Human-Machine Interface) design.
Predictable Result: The implementation of a HUD alongside the ADB-style (Adaptive Driving Beam/matrix) headlight projection system taught in KUNII results in a predictable multi-display system. A PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART would recognize this as a routine integration of established automotive display components to achieve a superior, multi-modal navigation experience.
Conclusion
Because the integration of a HUD with headlight-based projection systems is a predictable design choice utilizing known automotive display technologies, the combination represents an obvious modification of the system taught in KUNII.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6,13-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights