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 .
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No.11,079,619. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 of the instant application includes a broader version of independent claim 1 of the parent patent. Both independent claims are directed to “a directional display device for use in a vehicle arranged to display an image, the directional display device having an angular output light distribution that is adjustable; and a control system arranged to adjust the angular output light distribution of the directional display device.” The omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No.12,392,949. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 of the instant application includes a broader version of independent claim 1 of the parent patent. Both independent claims are directed to “a directional display device for use in a vehicle arranged to display an image, the directional display device having an angular output light distribution that is adjustable; and a control system arranged to adjust the angular output light distribution of the directional display device.” The omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
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 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mather et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2009/0040426).
Regarding claim 1, Mather et al. teaches a display apparatus comprising (Fig. 5a): a directional display device for use in a vehicle arranged to display an image (para. abstract, 0001, 0012-0015 vehicles directional display), the directional display device having an angular output light distribution that is adjustable (para. 0011, 0082 angular variation of the display); and a control system arranged to adjust the angular output light distribution of the directional display device (para. 0058, 0177-0180 controller; Figs. 5b, 16b – angular variation).
Regarding claim 16, Mather et al. teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control system is arranged to adjust at least one of the brightness, contrast, color balance, or content of the image displayed on the directional display device (para. 0173 describes adjusting the brightness).
Regarding claim 17, Mather et al. teaches a display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the directional display device comprises: a directional backlight arranged to direct light into selectable viewing windows (para. 0115-0116 describes a directional backlight arranged to direct light into selectable viewing windows); and a spatial light modulator arranged to modulate the light output by the directional backlight (para. 0118 describes a spatial light modulator arranged to modulate the light output by the directional backlight), wherein the control system is arranged to vary the angular output light distribution of the directional display device by selecting the viewing windows into which light is directed (para. 0118 describes arranging to vary the angular output light distribution of the directional display device by selecting the viewing windows into which light is directed).
Regarding claim 18, Mather et al. teaches a display apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the directional backlight comprises: an array of light sources (para. 0059,0123,0135 describe an array of light sources); and a directional waveguide arranged to direct light from each light source into a respective viewing window, wherein the control system is arranged to vary the angular output light distribution of the directional display device by selecting which light sources are operated (para. 0041 describes wherein the control system is arranged to vary the angular output light distribution of the directional display device by selecting which light sources are operated).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (US 2009/0040426), in view of Freed et al. (US 2015/0116212).
Regarding claim 2, Mather et al. teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the control system is further arranged to angularly restrict the angular output light distribution of the directional display device based on an output of a darkness sensor system provided on the vehicle indicating that dark ambient conditions have been detected.
However, Freed et al. teaches wherein the control system is further arranged to angularly restrict the angular output light distribution of the directional display device based on an output of a darkness sensor system provided on the vehicle indicating that dark ambient conditions have been detected (para. 0053 describes determine whether the device is exposed to ambient light or is in relative or complete darkness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the control system is further arranged to angularly restrict the angular output light distribution of the directional display device based on an output of a darkness sensor system provided on the vehicle indicating that dark ambient conditions have been detected, in order to detect an unintended viewer as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Freed et al. teaches a display apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control system is arranged to decrease the brightness of the directional display device and/or adapt the color balance of the directional display device for viewing in dark ambient conditions on the basis of the output of the darkness sensor system indicating that dark ambient conditions have been detected (paras. 0044, 0053, and 0054 describe decreasing the brightness of the directional display device and/or adapt the color balance of the directional display device for viewing in dark ambient conditions on the basis of the output of the darkness sensor system indicating that dark ambient conditions have been detected). The motivation to combine is the same as stated in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, Mather et al. teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except the control system is arranged to angularly restrict the angular output light distribution of the directional display device on the basis of the output of a darkness sensor system of the vehicle sensor system indicating that dark ambient conditions have been detected.
However, Freed et al. teaches wherein the control system is arranged to angularly restrict the angular output light distribution of the directional display device on the basis of the output of a darkness sensor system of the vehicle sensor system indicating that dark ambient conditions have been detected (para. 0053-0054 light-detecting element that is able to determine whether the device is exposed to ambient light or is in relative or complete darkness or brightness which may cause an action).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the control system is arranged to angularly restrict the angular output light distribution of the directional display device on the basis of the output of a darkness sensor system of the vehicle sensor system indicating that dark ambient conditions have been detected, in order to detect an unintended viewer as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Freed et al. teaches the display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the control system is arranged to restrict the angular output light distribution of the directional display device on the basis of the output of a brightness sensor system of the vehicle sensor system indicating that bright ambient conditions have been detected (para. 0053-0054 describe restricting the angular output light distribution of the directional display device on the basis of the output of a brightness sensor system of the vehicle sensor system indicating that bright ambient conditions have been detected). The motivation to combine is the same as stated in claim 4 above
Claims 6 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (US 2009/0040426), in further view of Woodgate et al. (US 20150268479), and in further view of Ricci et al. (US 9,324,234).
Regarding claim 6, Mather et al. teaches all claimed limitations as stated above. Mather et al. further teaches wherein the control system is arranged to expand the angular output light distribution of the directional display device (abstract describes expanding the angular output light distribution of the directional display device).
Mather et al. does not teach on the basis of the output of a vehicle motion sensor system of the vehicle sensor system indicating that the vehicle is motionless for a specified time.
However, Ricci et al. teaches on the basis of the output of a vehicle motion sensor system of the vehicle sensor system indicating that the vehicle is motionless for a specified time (col. 29 describes outputting of a vehicle motion sensor system of the vehicle sensor system indicating that the vehicle is motionless for a specified time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, on the basis of the output of a vehicle motion sensor system of the vehicle sensor system indicating that the vehicle is motionless for a specified time, in order to acquire position data to locate the on a road in the units map database as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Mather et al. teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the directional display device is arranged to display an image captured by an image capture system facing rearwardly of the vehicle.
However, Ricci et al. teaches wherein the directional display device is arranged to display an image captured by an image capture system facing rearwardly of the vehicle (col. 33, line 48 describes the directional display device is arranged to display an image captured by an image capture system facing rearwardly of the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the directional display device is arranged to display an image captured by an image capture system facing rearwardly of the vehicle, in order to acquire position data to locate the on a road in the units map database as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Mather et al. teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the directional display apparatus is a portable apparatus, the control system of the directional display apparatus being arranged to communicate with a processing system of the vehicle.
However, Ricci et al. wherein the directional display apparatus is a portable apparatus, the control system of the directional display apparatus being arranged to communicate with a processing system of the vehicle (col. 28, lines 40-45 describes the personal user device is docked to the dashboard of the vehicle as a display displaying information regarding the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the directional display apparatus is a portable apparatus, the control system of the directional display apparatus being arranged to communicate with a processing system of the vehicle, in order to acquire position data to locate the on a road in the units map database as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Ricci et al. teaches a display apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the control system of the directional display apparatus is arranged to receive layout information communicated from the processing system of the vehicle, the layout information identifying the internal layout of the vehicle (col. 28, lines 46-49 display panel (e.g., a dashboard displaying information regarding components in vehicle)).
Mather et al. further teaches an occupant seating system, and the control system is arranged to adjust the angular output light distribution of the directional display device on the basis of the layout information (abstract describes directional backlight for directing light through the display device; Figs. 5a, 5b).
The motivation to combine is the same as stated in claim 12 above
Regarding claim 14, Ricci et al. teaches a display apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the communication with the processing system of the vehicle is by a wireless means (col. 12, line 15 wireless para. Bluetooth, WiFi).
Regarding claim 15, teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the control system is arranged to vary the angular output light distribution of the directional display device in a manner that reduces the incidence of light on windows of the vehicle
However, Ricci et al. teaches wherein the control system is arranged to vary the angular output light distribution of the directional display device in a manner that reduces the incidence of light on windows of the vehicle (col 29, lines 15-40 reflection of objects to sense objects to control settings including.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the control system is arranged to vary the angular output light distribution of the directional display device in a manner that reduces the incidence of light on windows of the vehicle, in order to acquire position data to locate the on a road in the units map database as suggested by the prior art.
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2009/0040426) in view of Woodgate et al. (U.S. PG Pub 2015/0268479).
Regarding claim 7, Mather et al. teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the control system is arranged to direct the angular output light distribution of the directional display device towards an occupant on the basis of the output of an occupant sensor system of the vehicle sensor system.
However, Woodgate et al. teaches wherein the control system is arranged to direct the angular output light distribution of the directional display device towards an occupant on the basis of the output of an occupant sensor system of the vehicle sensor system (para. 0261-0262 tracking of multiple observers; Fig. 27D, E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the control system is arranged to direct the angular output light distribution of the directional display device towards an occupant on the basis of the output of an occupant sensor system of the vehicle sensor system, in order to control the light sources and the parallax element in accordance with the detected position of the head of the observer as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Mather et al. teaches a display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control system arranged to vary the angular output light distribution of the directional display device (para. 0058, 0177-0180 controller; Figs. 5b, 16b – angular variation)
Mather et al. does not disclose display apparatus further comprises an orientation sensor arranged to detect the orientation of the directional display device.
However, Woodgate et al. teaches a display apparatus further comprises an orientation sensor arranged to detect the orientation of the directional display device (para. 0012 efficient autostereoscopic operation in landscape and portrait orientations may be achieve; See also para. 0120-0122, 0171, 0240, 0335 0340).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a display apparatus further comprises an orientation sensor arranged to detect the orientation of the directional display device, in order to provide efficient autostereoscopic operations in landscape and in portrait orientations as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 19, Mather et al. teaches all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the directional waveguide comprises: a first guide surface and a second guide surface opposed to the first guide surface, the first guide surface and the second guide surface for guiding input light from the light sources along the directional waveguide; and a reflective end for reflecting input light back along the directional waveguide, wherein the second guide surface is arranged to deflect light reflected from the reflective end through the first guide surface as output light.
However, Woodgate et al. teaches wherein the directional waveguide comprises: a first guide surface and a second guide surface opposed to the first guide surface, the first guide surface and the second guide surface for guiding input light from the light sources along the directional waveguide (para. 0006 describes a first guide surface and the second guide surface for guiding input light from the light sources along the directional waveguide); and a reflective end for reflecting input light back along the directional waveguide, wherein the second guide surface is arranged to deflect light reflected from the reflective end through the first guide surface as output light (para. 0016 describes a reflective end for reflecting input light back along the directional waveguide, wherein the second guide surface is arranged to deflect light reflected from the reflective end through the first guide surface as output light).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the directional waveguide comprises: a first guide surface and a second guide surface opposed to the first guide surface, the first guide surface and the second guide surface for guiding input light from the light sources along the directional waveguide; and a reflective end for reflecting input light back along the directional waveguide, wherein the second guide surface is arranged to deflect light reflected from the reflective end through the first guide surface as output light, in order to compensate for the non-uniformity of the lateral window luminance distribution of the viewing windows as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 20, Woodgate et al. teaches display apparatus of claim 19, wherein the first guide surface is arranged to guide light by total internal reflection and the second guide surface comprises a plurality of light extraction features oriented to direct light reflected by the reflective end in directions allowing exit through the first guide surface as the output light and intermediate regions between the plurality of light extraction features that are arranged to guide light along the directional waveguide (para. 0016 describes the first guide surface is arranged to guide light by total internal reflection and the second guide surface comprises a plurality of light extraction features oriented to direct light reflected by the reflective end in directions allowing exit through the first guide surface as the output light and intermediate regions between the plurality of light extraction features that are arranged to guide light along the directional waveguide). The motivation to combine is the same as stated in claim 19 above.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather et al. (US 2009/0040426), in further view of Woodgate et al. (US 20150268479), and in further view of Ricci et al. (US 9,324,234).
Regarding claim 9, Mather et al. and Woodgate et al. teach all claimed limitations as stated above, except wherein the orientation sensor comprises an inertial sensor. However, Ricci et al. teaches wherein the orientation sensor comprises an inertial sensor (col. 5, lines 37-46 describe navigation system includes gyroscope, accelerometer sensors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the orientation sensor comprises an inertial sensor, in order to acquire position data to locate the on a road in the units map database as suggested by the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, Mather et al. and Woodgate et al. teach all claimed limitations as stated above, except, wherein the orientation sensor comprises a camera system and an analysis system arranged to detect the position of windows of the vehicle in images captured by the camera system.
However, Ricci et al. teaches wherein the orientation sensor comprises a camera system and an analysis system arranged to detect the position of windows of the vehicle in images captured by the camera system (col. 29, lines 30-41 describes an orientation sensor comprises a camera system and an analysis system arranged to detect the position of windows of the vehicle in images captured by the camera system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the orientation sensor comprises a camera system and an analysis system arranged to detect the position of windows of the vehicle in images captured by the camera system, in order to acquire position data to locate the on a road in the units map database as suggested by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mishawn N Hunter whose telephone number is (571)272-7635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm.
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, Thai Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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.
/MISHAWN N. HUNTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights