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 .
Reissue Applications
This application seeks to reissue US Patent No. 10,989,929 (“the ‘929 patent”). In a preliminary amendment, new claims 12-22 have been introduced. Claims 1-22 are pending. This is a continuation reissue application of US 17/994,579. This is a broadening reissue application.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,989,929 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Claim Interpretation - General
The claims of this application, especially new claims 12-22, are replete with clarity issues. See the §112(b) rejections below. An attempt has been made to identify each issue and to examine these claims based on the scope that the examiner assumes is intended by the applicant. However, the scope of a number of claims cannot be accurately determined. The applicant is invited to review the claims for clarity and to amend the claims into idiomatic English.
Claim Interpretation – Non-limiting Language
Claim 12 includes the language “when the video image light of the video image reflected by the projection mirror is projected onto the windshield of the vehicle, a driver of the vehicle visually recognizes the video image as a virtual image.” This language does not limit the scope of the claim. “Claim scope is not limited … by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” MPEP 2111.04 I. That a driver “visually recognizes the image as a virtual image” does not present any structural limitation on the head-up display apparatus to which the claim is drawn. Nor is this language presented as a functional limitation on the apparatus. Instead, this language describes a cognitive state of the driver, thus shows an intended result of the effect of the head-up display. As a description of intended result, this language does not limit the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim. See also MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claims 13-22 depend from claim 12 and inherit this interpretation. Claims 13-16, 18-19, and 22 include further language describing what the driver “recognizes.” The language in these claims is likewise non-limiting for reasons given above.
Claim Interpretation – Means Plus Function
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“vehicle information acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 12. The structure corresponding to this element is depicted in Fig. 3 and described at 6:57-67 of the ‘929 patent.
“controller” in claims 1 and 12. The structure and algorithm that corresponds to this element is described in the ‘929 patent at Fig. 1 and its description.
“mirror driver” in claim 1. The algorithm corresponding to the functions performed by this element is described at Fig. 10 and its description in the ‘929 patent.
“display distance adjusting mechanism” in claim 1. The algorithm for the functions performed by this mechanism is given in the description of Figures 21 and 22 in the ‘929 patent.
“display adjusting unit” in claim 12. This is understood to describe the “mirror driver” that is shown at Fig. 10 and its description.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Objections, 37 C.F.R. 1.173
The amended specification is objected to under 37 CFR 1.173. “All amendments submitted under 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1)(i), which include any deletions or additions, must be made by submission of the entire text of each added or rewritten paragraph with markings (single brackets and underlining).” MPEP 1453 I. The amended specification does not produce the entire paragraph to be amended, nor is it made with the proper markings. In addition, “Applicant must indicate the precise point where any added or rewritten paragraph is located.” Id.
Objection, 37 CFR 1.177
This application is objected to for failing to conform to 37 CFR 1.177(b). This continuation reissue application presents claims 1-11 of the ‘929 patent. However, these claims have already been reissued in parent application 17/994,579. “The same claim of the patent cannot, however, be presented for examination in both the parent reissue application and the continuation reissue application, as a pending claim, in either its original or amended versions.” MPEP 1451 II. “Once a claim in the patent has been reissued, it does not exist in the original patent; thus, it cannot be reissued from the original patent in another reissue application.” MPEP 1451 I.
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 1-2 and 4-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,769,831 in view of Iino, US 5,510,983. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For instance, Claims 1-6 of the ‘831 patent recite all subject matter of claim 1 of this application except “a display distance adjusting mechanism configured to adjust display distances of a virtual image to be different for different display areas on the windshield with respect to a driver, that the vehicle information includes brightness of an outside of the vehicle, and wherein the controller adjusts a display position of the virtual image based on a maximum display distance.” However, as described in the prior art rejections below, Iino teaches this feature. Rationale to modify the claims of the ‘831 patent with these teachings is the same as rationale given below to include these features in the Shimakawa reference.
All other claims of this application recite only obvious variants of the claims of the patent. Where the claims of the patent do not disclose subject matter recited in the claims of this patent, it would have been obvious to modify the patent to include the features using the prior art references and rationales cited in the prior art rejections below.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of US Patent RE50622. The claims of the reissued patent are narrower in scope than, and therefore anticipate, the independent claims of this application. All other claims of this application find corresponding subject matter in the claims of the reissued patent, or only recite obvious variants thereof.
Claims 1-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/079,411 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the ‘411 application recites all subject matter recited in claim 1 of the instant application, except “a display distance adjusting mechanism configured to adjust display distances of a virtual image to be different for different display areas on the windshield with respect to a driver, that the vehicle information includes brightness of an outside of the vehicle, and wherein the controller adjusts a display position of the virtual image based on a maximum display distance.” However, as described in the prior art rejections below, Iino teaches this feature. Rationale to modify the claims of the ‘411 application with these teachings is the same as rationale given below to include these features in the Shimakawa reference.
All other claims of this application recite only obvious variants of the claims of the ‘411 application. Where the claims of the ‘411 application do not disclose subject matter recited in the claims of this application, it would have been obvious to modify the ‘411 application to include the features using the prior art references and rationales cited in the prior art rejections below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections, 35 USC § 251
Claims 1-11 are rejected under §251 for not correcting an error in the original patent. As described in the 37 CFR 1.177(b) objection above, claims 1-11 of the ‘929 patent were reissued in the parent reissue application 17/994,579. Claims 1-11 of the ‘929 patent were therefore superseded and thus no longer exist in the original patent.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
The recapture analysis involves a three-step process:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
MPEP 1412.02 II.
Step (1): Claims 12-22 have been broadened relative to the claims of the ‘929 patent. See the 08/25/2025 Declaration. Analysis therefore proceeds to step (2).
Step (2): Claim 12 omits limitations that were surrendered during prosecution of US application 16/071,523 (“the ‘523 application”), from which the ‘929 patent issued. These limitations include:
SGL 1: a distance display adjusting mechanism adjusts display distances of the virtual image “to be different for different display areas on the windshield.”
SGL 2: “wherein the vehicle information includes brightness of an outside of the vehicle and information on a running road.”
SGL 3: “wherein the controller adjusts a display position of the virtual image based on a maximum display distance set by the information so as to display such that the virtual image is fitted to and overlapped with a focus which the driver sees.”
SGL 1 was introduced in a 06/25/2020 claim amendment, and was described by the applicant as a feature that differentiated over the prior art that was identified in the preceding Office action. See 06/25/2020 Remarks at 10-11. SGL 2 and SGL 3 were included in the 01/08/2021 amendment and were also identified by the applicant as being included to overcome the prior art rejections on record. See 01/08/2021 Remarks at 8-9. These limitations were surrendered because they were “added in the original application claims for the purpose of making the application claims allowable over a rejection.” MPEP 1412.02 II.B.2. Having omitted these limitations from the reissue claim 12, the claim attempts to recapture this surrendered claim scope. Analysis therefore continues to step (3).
Step (3): SGLs 1-3 have been entirely omitted from claim 12. Accordingly, the claims have not been materially narrowed in other respects such that the recapture rule is avoided. MPEP 1412.02 II.C.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under §112(b). As described in the 37 CFR 1.177(b) objection above, claims 1-11 of the ‘929 patent were reissued in the parent reissue application 17/994,579. Therefore claims 1-11 in the reissue application 17/994,579 present one coverage of the claims of the ‘929 patent, while the claims of the instant application present a different, inconsistent coverage. Please refer to MPEP 1451 I.
Claims 1-11 are additionally rejected under §112(b). Claim 1 recites that the image position is adjusted such that it is “fitted to and overlapped with a focus which the driver sees.” The scope of this limitation is not clear. In particular, it is clear what exactly is required by the requirement that the image be “fitted to” the focus which the driver sees. It would appear that the image being “fitted to” the driver’s focus is of narrower scope than the image being “overlapped with” the driver’s focus. However, because the claim recites that both of these conditions are met, the scope of this limitation cannot be determined. Additionally, because the display position is being adjusted to match the driver’s “focus,” it would appear that the term “focus” in these claims refers to the driver’s line of sight or field of view, rather than the driver’s “focus” as that word is generally understood. This causes additional uncertainty in the claim scope.
Claims 1-11 are additionally rejected under §112(b). Claim 1 recites that “the controller adjusts a display position of the virtual image based on a maximum display distance set by the information.” The claim limitation “the information” lacks antecedent basis. In addition, it is not clear if this refers to the “vehicle information,” the “information on a running road,” or a different “information.” Furthermore, it is not clear in light of the written description what is required by the “maximum display distance” being “set by the information.” For these reasons, claim 1 and its dependents are of indefinite scope.
Claims 12-22 recite that when the image is projected onto the windshield, “a driver of the vehicle visually recognizes the video image as a virtual image.” Based on this language, it is not clear what would constitute infringement of the claim. For example, it is unclear whether infringement would occur when one creates a head-up display apparatus that is configured to operate as recited in the claim, or whether infringement would require a driver to be seated in the driver’s seat of a vehicle containing the apparatus, view the projected video image, and visually recognize it as a virtual image. This is similar to reciting a product and a process in a single claim, as described in MPEP 2173.05(p) II. The claims are therefore indefinite because “a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement.” MPEP 2173.02 II.
In addition, it is not clear what is required by the claim 12 language “control display of the virtual image with respect to the driver.”
Claims 13-16, 18-19, and 22 include further language describing what the driver “recognizes.” These claims are indefinite for reasons similar to those given above.
Claim 13 recites that the apparatus includes “at least one mirror.” The BRI of this language is that a single mirror is present. However, the claim later recite that “a plurality of the virtual images” are displayed. In the embodiment recited in claim 13, it is not clear how a single mirror can produce a plurality of virtual images.
Claim 14: the BRI of claim 14 requires that a single lens produces a plurality of virtual images. This is indefinite for reasons similar to claim 13. See above.
Claim 14 recites that a movable lens is “arranged on an optical axis of each display area of the video image.” This limitation is indefinite. The “axis” on which the lenses are arranged has not been defined. It would appear from a description of Fig. 15 of the ‘929 patent that the claim intends to recite that the lenses are arranged on an optical path that corresponds to a plurality of display areas. However, this is not what is recited in the claim, and it cannot be determined with certainty what limitation claim 14 places on the arrangement of the lenses.
Claim 14 recites “a movable lens” and later recites “at least one movable lens.” It is not clear if the claim requires one, or at least one, movable lens.
Claim 15 recites that a “display area” of the video image is able to be moved and/or rotated. This is indefinite. This claim appears to be drawn to the embodiment that is depicted in Fig. 18 of the ‘929 patent, which shows that a “movable diffuser 41c can be moved and/or rotated.” However, because the claim recites that the “display area of the video image,” rather than a diffuser, is moved and/or rotated, it is not clear if the scope of the claim includes what is shown in Fig. 18 of the ‘929 patent, or if it requires that area on which the image is displayed (such as the vehicle windshield) is moved and/or rotated.
Claim 15 recites “a distance to the projection mirror differs for each the display area.” This is unclear.
Claim 16 recites “the optical filter differing in length for each display area of the video images.” The claim does not require plural display areas. Therefore it is not clear if the scope of the claim only requires a single display area, and accordingly an optical filter only having a single “length,” or if the claim requires a filter having plural lengths, as is depicted in Fig. 19 of the ‘929 patent.
Claim 17 recites that “each optical filter has a different refractive index.” As described above, it is not clear whether claim 16, from which claim 17 depends, requires one or plural optical filters.
Claim 18 recites “the display adjusting unit is configured to adjust a transmitted state and a white state by electricity.” It is not clear which element in the system has a “transmitted state and a white state” adjusted by electricity. It is not clear if the “display adjusting unit” has its transmitted/white state adjusted, or if a different element, such as the “functional film,” is adjusted. In addition, the term “the functional film” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 18 describes a single “functional film,” but also recites that “a plurality of the virtual images” is produced. In light of the ‘929 patent Fig. 13, it is not clear if this requires plural functional films, as depicted therein, or only a single functional film.
Claims 19 and 22 are rejected for reciting language similar to claim 18.
Claim 20 recites “a display distance of the plurality of virtual images displayed in the upward and downward directions is changed.” It is not clear what is required by this language. This could be interpreted in a variety of ways, including for example: 1) the display distance of all virtual images is changed, because all images may be considered to be “displayed in the upward and downward directions”; 2) the display distances of images having a vertical orientation (i.e., “in the upward and downward directions”) are changed; or 3) the display distances are variably changed based on the images’ vertical position on the windshield.
Claim 21 includes language similar to claim 20 and is rejected for similar reasons.
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 1-2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa, JP 2011-7562 (reference below is made to the English translation that is provided with this Office action) in view of Iino, US 5,510,983.
As to claim 1 Shimakawa discloses a head-up display apparatus (Fig. 3 and ¶28) displaying a virtual image to be overlapped with scenery in front of a vehicle with respect to a driver by projecting a video image onto a windshield of the vehicle, the head-up display apparatus (Figures 2-3 and their description) comprising:
a vehicle information acquisition unit configured to acquire various kinds of vehicle information which can be detected by the vehicle (¶21 – sensor unit 40 obtains various types of vehicle information);
a controller configured to control display of the video image based on the vehicle information acquired by the vehicle information acquisition unit (¶15 – the CPU controls overall operation of the HUD, including display of the image. ¶¶ 21 and 46-47 - the location and content of this image is controlled based on vehicle sensor data, including speed and inclination);
a video image display configured to form the video image based on an instruction from the controller (Fig. 1: 20; ¶17 – display apparatus 20 operates based on instruction from the controller);
a mirror configured to reflect the video image formed by the video image display to project onto a windshield (Fig. 3: 24; ¶¶29-30);
a mirror driver configured to change an angle of the mirror (Fig. 3: 26; ¶30 – mirror driver 26 adjusts the angle of the mirror to control image position on the windshield) based on an instruction from the controller (¶¶45-47 – the image position is adjusted based the controller instruction, which determines mirror angle based on vehicle orientation as well as relative elevation of points A and B. See Fig. 10-11),
wherein the controller adjusts the angle of the mirror via the mirror driver based on the vehicle information such that the virtual image can be displayed with respect to the driver to be overlapped with the scenery (¶¶45-47 – the controller adjusts mirror angle based on vehicle orientation as well as relative elevation of points A and B. See Fig. 10-11. This positions the virtual image to be overlapped with its associated intended real-world object),
wherein the vehicle information includes information on a running road (¶¶45-47 and Fig. 10-11 – the vehicle information includes vehicle orientation, which describes road inclination, therefore is information on a running road).
Shimakawa fails to disclose a display distance adjusting mechanism configured to adjust display distances of a virtual image to be different for different display areas on the windshield with respect to a driver; that the vehicle information includes brightness of an outside of the vehicle, and wherein the controller adjusts a display position of the virtual image based on a maximum display distance such that the virtual image is fitted to and overlapped with a focus which the driver sees.
However, Iino discloses a vehicle HUD (Fig. 1) including:
a display distance adjusting mechanism configured to adjust display distances of a virtual image to be different for different display areas on the windshield with respect to a driver (Fig. 1 and 3:26-41 – the location of the virtual image is adjusted on the HUD. In doing so, virtual image X2 is “more distance” from the driver’s eye than image X1. Adjusting the image location therefore adjusts display distances of the virtual image),
wherein the vehicle information includes brightness of an outside of the vehicle (4:1-14 – photodetector 12 obtains information regarding exterior brightness. 2:12-23 - the position of the virtual image is adjusted based on the exterior brightness), and
wherein the controller adjusts a display position of the virtual image based on a maximum display distance set by the information so as to display such that the virtual image is fitted to and overlapped with a focus which the driver sees (Fig. 1 and 3:26-41 – virtual image location X2 is at a maximum display distance and X1 is at a minimum display distance. Fig. 5 and 4:53-5:29 - the virtual image location is adjusted such that it is either positioned at X2 or X1, therefore its position is based on the location of image X2, or “based on a maximum display distance” when that phrase is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. This fits/overlaps the image to the driver’s focus.).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shimakawa with the teachings of Iino, the motivation being to improve visibility of the HUD display under various circumstances. See Iino 1:48-56.
As to claim 2 Shimakawa discloses that the controller:
acquires information relating to a first grade of a forward road as the vehicle information from the vehicle information acquisition unit (Fig. 11 and ¶¶ 47-48 – inclination angle α is the grade of the road in front of the vehicle. ¶18 - this information is obtained from a map database 32, which forms a portion of a vehicle information acquisition unit. See Fig. 1), and information relating to a second grade of a road of a current place (¶47 – sensor detection angle a shows the slope of the vehicle, which is information relating to the grade of the road at the vehicle’s current location);
adjusts, when the first grade is larger than the second grade by a predetermined threshold value or more, the angle of the mirror via the mirror driver such that a display position of the virtual image moves in an upward direction; and adjusts, when the second grade is larger than the first grade by a predetermined threshold value or more, the angle of the mirror via the mirror driver such that the display position of the virtual image moves in a downward direction (¶¶45-48 – the image is shifted by distance M when the inclination angle α is greater than detection angle a by a threshold value of zero. As shown in equation 4, this movement can be in an upward or downward direction, based on the sum of angles β and ε. As described in the rejection of claim 1, this shift of the image is achieved by adjusting the angle of the mirror 24 using the mirror driver 26).
As to claim 4 Iino discloses that the controller: acquires information relating to a speed of the vehicle as the vehicle information from the vehicle information acquisition unit; and adjusts, when the speed is larger than a predetermined threshold value, the angle of the mirror via the mirror driver such that a display position of the virtual image moves in an upward direction (2:12-23).
As to claim 7 Shimakawa discloses that the controller adjusts a display position of the virtual image based on the vehicle information so as to display such that the virtual image is fitted to and overlapped with a focus which the driver sees (Fig. 3; ¶¶ 30 and 46).
Claim 12: the Shimakawa-Iino combination that is described above discloses head-up display apparatus (Shimakawa Fig. 3 and ¶28) comprising:
a vehicle information acquisition unit configured to acquire various kinds of vehicle information (Shimakawa ¶21 – sensor unit 40 obtains various types of vehicle information);
a video image display configured to form a video image based on the vehicle information acquired by the vehicle information acquisition unit (Shimakawa Fig. 1: 20; ¶17 – display apparatus 20 operates based on information obtained by the sensors. As an example, the video is displayed based on vehicle orientation and upcoming road slope. See Fig 9-14 and their description.);
a projection mirror configured to reflect a video image light of the video image formed by the video image display to project onto a windshield of the vehicle (Shimakawa Fig. 3: 24; ¶¶29-30);
a display adjusting unit configured to adjust display of the video image (Shimakawa Fig. 3: 26; ¶30 – mirror driver 26, which is a display adjusting unit, adjusts the angle of the mirror to control image position on the windshield); and
a controller configured to control the display of the video images based on the information acquired by the vehicle information acquisition unit (Shimakawa ¶¶45-47 – the controller adjusts mirror angle based on vehicle orientation as well as relative elevation of points A and B. See Fig. 10-11. This positions the virtual image to be overlapped with its associated intended real-world object),
wherein, when the video image light of the video image reflected by the projection mirror is projected onto the windshield of the vehicle, a driver of the vehicle visually recognizes the video image as a virtual image, and the display adjusting unit is configured to control display of the virtual image with respect to the driver (Iino 2:47-3:41. See also Fig. 5 and 4:53-5:29).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa and Iino in view of Su, US 20140160012.
As to claim 5 the Shimakawa-Iino combination fails to disclose that the controller: acquires information relating to a height position of eyes of the driver as the vehicle information from the vehicle information acquisition unit; adjusts, when the height position is higher than a predetermined threshold value, the angle of the mirror via the mirror driver such that a display position of the virtual image moves in an upward direction; and adjusts, when the height position is lower than the predetermined threshold value, the angle of the mirror via the mirror driver such that the display position of the virtual image moves in a downward direction.
However, Su discloses a vehicle HUD system that acquires information relating to a height position of eyes of the driver as the vehicle information from the vehicle information acquisition unit; adjusts, when the height position is higher than a predetermined threshold value, the display position of the virtual image moves in an upward direction; and adjusts, when the height position is lower than the predetermined threshold value, the display position of the virtual image moves in a downward direction (¶¶ 23 and 29-30 and equation 2 – the virtual image shown on the windshield is moved vertically based on the height of the driver’s eye. This inherently entails adjusting upward when the height position is higher than a previous (i.e. a threshold) location, and adjusting downward when the height is lower).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimakawa-Iino with the teachings of Su, the motivation being to ensure that the displayed image remains properly overlapped in the driver’s field of view. See Su ¶6. When the teachings of Shimakawa and Su are combined in this way, the position of Shimakawa’s mirror would be adjusted in order to alter the display position of the image based on the driver’s eye height.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa and Iino in view of Nagahara, US 20100066832.
As to claim 6 the Shimakawa-Iino combination fails to disclose that the controller: acquires information relating to a vibration amount of the vehicle as the vehicle information from the vehicle information acquisition unit; and offsets the video image in a display region of the video image in accordance with the vibration amount.
However, Nagahara discloses a vehicle HUD device that acquires information relating to a vibration amount of the vehicle as the vehicle information from the vehicle information acquisition unit; and offsets the video image in a display region of the video image in accordance with the vibration amount (¶¶33-34).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimakawa-Iino with the teachings of Nagahara, the rationale being to improve visibility of the projected image by countering for the effects of vehicle vibration. See Nagahara ¶¶10-13.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa and Iino in view of JP3452480 (“JP ‘480” – reference below is made to the English translation provided with this Office action).
As to claim 8 the Shimakawa-Iino system fails to disclose that the controller acquires vergence angle information, and adjusts the display position of the virtual image in accordance with vergence angle based on the vergence angle information so as to display such that the virtual image is fitted to and overlapped with the focus which the driver sees.
However, JP ‘480 discloses a vehicle HUD (p. 33 ¶9) including a controller that acquires vergence angle information, and adjusts the display position of the virtual image in accordance with vergence angle based on the vergence angle information so as to display such that the virtual image is fitted to and overlapped with the focus which the driver sees (p. 35 ¶3 – vergence angle information relating to a desired virtual image location is obtained, and the image locations are adjusted to fit/overlap to the eye focus location corresponding to this position).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimakawa-Iino with the teachings of JP ‘480, the rationale being to improve operator comfort. See JP ‘480 p. 35.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa and Iino in view of Sato, US 20120050138.
As to claim 9 the Shimakawa-Iino system fails to disclose that the controller acquires eye point information, and adjusts a display position where the virtual image is displayed to be overlapped with the scenery based on a relation between an eye point based on the eye point information and a distance from the eye point to a road surface.
However, Sato discloses a vehicle HUD including a controller that acquires eye point information, and adjusts a display position where the virtual image is displayed to be overlapped with the scenery based on a relation between an eye point based on the eye point information and a distance from the eye point to a road surface (¶¶ 69-71 and 77 – the location of the virtual road marking is determined based on distance from the driver’s eye point to the location of where the virtual road marking is to be superimposed onto the exterior landscape).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shimakawa-Iino with the teachings of Sato, the motivation being to provide improved safety by enabling road-surface virtual markings, while simultaneously enabling these virtual markings to be properly displayed based on various factors. See Sato ¶¶ 6-7 and 69.
As to claim 10 Sato discloses that the controller continuously changes a height of the display position from the road surface where the virtual image is displayed, in proportion to the distance from the eye point to the road surface, and displays the virtual image to be overlapped with the scenery (¶¶69-71; Fig. 3 – the process of locating the virtual image repeats continuously – see ¶53).
As to claim 11 Sato discloses that the controller changes a height of the display position from the road surface where the virtual image is displayed, to a different height corresponding to the distance from the eye point to the road surface, and displays the virtual image to be overlapped with the scenery (¶¶69-71 and Fig. 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa-Iino in view of Matsuura, US 20180143431 (support for the relied-upon passages in Matsuura is found in its foreign priority application JP 2015-0979999).
Claim 13: Shimakawa discloses that the display adjusting unit includes a mirror arranged on a light emitting side emitting the video image light from the video image display (Fig. 3: 24).
The Shimakawa-Iino system fails to disclose at least one mirror arranged for each display area of the video image, and wherein a distance to the projection mirror differs for each display area, and the driver of the vehicle visually recognizes a plurality of the virtual images.
Matsuura discloses a head-up display having a video image display (First image display unit 10 and second image display unit 10 together form a video image display. See Fig. 3 and ¶33), the head-up display including at least one mirror arranged for each display area of the video image, and wherein a distance to the projection mirror differs for each display area, and the driver of the vehicle visually recognizes a plurality of the virtual images (The optical path length corresponding to different display areas is different based on the mirrors. ¶41. This produces different virtual images (see e.g. Fig. 2 and its description) having different focal lengths).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shimakawa-Iino with teachings in Matsuura, the motivation being to enable the driver to more easily differentiate information by producing an improved stereoscopic effect. See Matsuura ¶7.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa-Iino in view of Sekiya, JP H11119147.
Claim 14: Shimakawa-Iino fails to disclose that the display adjusting unit includes a movable lens arranged on a light emitting side emitting the video image light from the video image display, with at least one movable lens arranged on an optical axis of each display area of the video image, and wherein a focus distance is controlled for each display area such that the driver of the vehicle visually recognizes a plurality of the virtual images.
Sekiya discloses a head-up display apparatus having a display adjusting unit, wherein the display adjusting unit includes a movable lens arranged on a light emitting side emitting the video image light from the video image display, with at least one movable lens arranged on an optical axis of each display area of the video image, and wherein a focus distance is controlled for each display area such that the driver of the vehicle visually recognizes a plurality of the virtual images (Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, and pg. 5 – the display (or focus) distance of the virtual image is controlled by moving movable lens L2).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Shimakawa-Iino with the teachings in Sekiya, the rationale being to provide a way to easily adjust display distances, thereby providing a HUD that quickly and accurately projects a virtual image at a display distance that corresponds to the driver’s natural focus distance. See e.g. Sekiya ¶¶3-4.
Claims 15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimakawa-Iino in view of Christmas, US 20170082855.
Claim 15: Shimakawa-Iino fails to disclose that the display adjusting unit is configured to move and/or rotate a display area of the video image along a direction of an optical axis such that a distance to the projection mirror differs for each the display area such that the driver of the vehicle visually recognizes a plurality of the virtual images.
However, Christmas discloses a display adjusting unit configured to move and/or rotate a display area of the video image along a direction of an optical axis such that a distance to the projection mirror differs for each the display area such that the driver of the vehicle visually recognizes a plurality of the virtual images (The projection surface, or display area of the video image, is moved by controlling the diffusers such that an image is only visible on one of plural diffusers. ¶¶ 62 and 68-69; Fig. 6. This results in differing distances to the projection mirror (see Fig. 2), which results in images having differ