DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Acknowledgement is made of the response filed on July 09, 2026, in which claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended, claims 3-4, 10-11 and 17 are canceled, rejection of claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 18-20 are traversed and claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 18-20 currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert et al. (US 2017/0371165 A1, hereinafter referred as “Lambert”) in view of Kasazumi et al. (US 2020/0012103 A1, hereinafter referred as “Kasazumi”).
Regarding claim 1, Lambert discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a video display controller, a user input (Fig. 1, ¶0005-¶0007, ¶0015 and ¶0019 discloses controller 14 for adjusting the image data in response to driver input from the driver input device 12);
determining, based on the user input, a position of a perceived region (¶0015 discloses adjustment of the head up display for the height of the driver (e.g., by rotating a mirror) may undesirably change the perceived vertical height of graphics relative to the vehicle in front), wherein a display region includes the perceived region (¶0005 discloses the software that places the graphical images on the display internal to the HUD, such that the displayed graphical image corresponds to the perceived region);
determining, based on the position of the perceived region, a variance of at least one or more lines is outside an eyebox of a user (¶0016 discloses compensate for the commanded vertical position of graphics displayed on virtual image 24, and for the perceived change in the vertical position of virtual image 24, caused by the vertical adjustment of eye box 26);
calculating, based on the variance of the least one or more lines… being outside the eyebox of the user, a corresponding position of a mirror (¶0017-¶0018 discloses the HUD can determine the setting of the mirror angle that adjusts for the driver's height. Software may be used to compensate in the image data for any change in the apparent height of the HUD virtual image above the road); and
causing, based on the corresponding position of the mirror and the determined variance of the at least one or more lines, the perceived region to appear within the eyebox of the user (Fig. 2 and ¶0019 discloses right half of the drawing shows eyebox 26 after the driver has adjusted its vertical position, and virtual image 24 after software within HUD controller 14 has adjusted the position of virtual image 24 within eyebox 26 to compensate for the vertical adjustment of eyebox 26), causing the perceived region to appear within the eyebox based on cooperative adjustment of the mirror and displayed image (¶0016 discloses the vertical adjustment of eye box 26 may be achieved by rotating a mirror 21 and determining the rotational position of the mirror; ¶0024 discloses the image data from HUD controller 14 may be changed in response to the determined angle of reflection of the mirror such that a vertical level of virtual image 24 is unchanged by the rotation of mirror 21).
Lambert doesn’t disclose the cooperative adjustment comprises adjusting the corresponding position of the mirror using a motor; and adjusting the perceived region within the display region using a video timing control to selectively activate the plurality of lines to vary a portion of the display region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kasazumi discloses the cooperative adjustment (¶0065, ¶0072 and ¶0076 disclose position correcting unit 4 causes both first correcting unit 41 and second correcting unit 42 as a combination to change the display position of virtual image 300) comprises adjusting the corresponding position of the mirror using a motor (¶0052 discloses mirror driving unit 52 changes the direction of second mirror 32, and a display position of each virtual image 300 relative to main body unit 1 changes… Mirror driving unit 52 is formed from, for example, an electrically-driven actuator such as a motor); and adjusting the perceived region within the display region using a video timing control (¶0051 and ¶0064 disclose the display controller 51 determines a position of image 700, and changes the display position of each virtual image 300 by changing the position of image 700 on display surface 20) to selectively activate the plurality of lines to vary a portion of the display region (¶0102 discloses scanning unit 242 performs a raster scan operation of two-dimensional scanning light over a plurality of sequential display lines whose position is controlled to shift the image on the display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lambert for the purpose of adjusting a display position of a virtual image in accordance with various vibrations exerted on a display device (¶0016).
Regarding claim 2, Lambert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user input comprises at least one of: a content of the perceived region, a height of the perceived region (¶0015 discloses the vertical movement of eyebox 26 may also change the vertical position of virtual image 24 and change the perceived vertical height of graphics relative to the vehicle in front), or a format of the perceived region.
Regarding claim 3, Lambert doesn’t disclose the method of claim 1, , wherein the perceived region is varied based on a video control timer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kasazumi discloses wherein a display region includes the perceived region, wherein the perceived region is varied based on a video control timer (¶0051 discloses display controller 51 can, for example, display image 700 corresponding to first virtual image 301 on an upper half of display surface 20 or a lower half of display surface 20. As a position of an image on display surface 20 changes, a display position of each virtual image 300 relative to main body unit 1 changes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lambert for the purpose of rapid adjustment of the corresponding virtual-image position.
Regarding claim 4, Lambert doesn’t disclose the method of claim 3, wherein causing the perceived region to appear within the eyebox of the user comprises: adjusting the corresponding position of the mirror using a motor; and adjusting the perceived region within the display region using a video timing control.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kasazumi discloses wherein causing the perceived region to appear within the eyebox of the user comprises: adjusting the corresponding position of the mirror using a motor (¶0052 discloses mirror driving unit 52 changes the direction of second mirror 32 by rotating second mirror 32… Mirror driving unit 52 is formed from, for example, an electrically-driven actuator such as a motor); and adjusting the perceived region within the display region using a video timing control (¶0051 discloses display controller 51 can, for example, display image 700 corresponding to first virtual image 301 on an upper half of display surface 20 or a lower half of display surface 20. As a position of an image on display surface 20 changes, a display position of each virtual image 300 relative to main body unit 1 changes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lambert for the purpose of providing improved responsiveness and a greater usable correction range while maintaining a the HUD virtual image at its intended position within the driver’s eyebox.
Regarding claim 7, Lambert discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the position of the perceived region is adjusted based on the eyebox of the user (Fig. 2 and ¶0019 discloses right half of the drawing shows eyebox 26 after the driver has adjusted its vertical position, and virtual image 24 after software within HUD controller 14 has adjusted the position of virtual image 24 within eyebox 26 to compensate for the vertical adjustment of eyebox 26).
Regarding claim 8, Lambert discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a display (Fig. 1 and ¶0014 discloses light emitter 19);
a… mirror (Fig. 1 and ¶0014 discloses mirror 21);… and
a video display controller (14), wherein the video display controller (14) is configured to:
receive a user input (Fig. 1, ¶0005-¶0007, ¶0015 and ¶0019 discloses controller 14 for adjusting the image data in response to driver input from the driver input device 12);
determining, based on the user input, a position of a perceived region (¶0015 discloses adjustment of the head up display for the height of the driver (e.g., by rotating a mirror) may undesirably change the perceived vertical height of graphics relative to the vehicle in front), wherein a display region includes the perceived region (¶0005 discloses the software that places the graphical images on the display internal to the HUD, such that the displayed graphical image corresponds to the perceived region);
determining, based on the position of the perceived region, a variance of at least one or more lines… is outside an eyebox of a user (¶0016 discloses compensate for the commanded vertical position of graphics displayed on virtual image 24, and for the perceived change in the vertical position of virtual image 24, caused by the vertical adjustment of eye box 26);
calculate, based on the variance of the least one or more lines being outside the eyebox of the user, [a position of the]… mirror (¶0017-¶0018 discloses the HUD can determine the setting of the mirror angle that adjusts for the driver's height. Software may be used to compensate in the image data for any change in the apparent height of the HUD virtual image above the road); and
cause, based on the corresponding position of the… mirror and the determined variance of the at least one or more lines, the perceived region to appear within the eyebox of the user (Fig. 2 and ¶0019 discloses right half of the drawing shows eyebox 26 after the driver has adjusted its vertical position, and virtual image 24 after software within HUD controller 14 has adjusted the position of virtual image 24 within eyebox 26 to compensate for the vertical adjustment of eyebox 26), causing the perceived region to appear within the eyebox based on cooperative adjustment of the mirror and displayed image (¶0016 discloses the vertical adjustment of eye box 26 may be achieved by rotating a mirror 21 and determining the rotational position of the mirror; ¶0024 discloses the image data from HUD controller 14 may be changed in response to the determined angle of reflection of the mirror such that a vertical level of virtual image 24 is unchanged by the rotation of mirror 21), causing the perceived region to appear within the eyebox based on cooperative adjustment of the mirror and displayed image (¶0016 discloses the vertical adjustment of eye box 26 may be achieved by rotating a mirror 21 and determining the rotational position of the mirror; ¶0024 discloses the image data from HUD controller 14 may be changed in response to the determined angle of reflection of the mirror such that a vertical level of virtual image 24 is unchanged by the rotation of mirror 21).
Lambert doesn’t disclose a first mirror; a second mirror; and a motor, and an axis of tilt of the second mirror; the cooperative adjustment comprises adjusting the corresponding position of the mirror using a motor; and adjusting the perceived region within the display region using a video timing control to selectively activate the plurality of lines to vary a portion of the display region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kasazumi discloses a first mirror (31); a second mirror (32); and a motor (Fig. 1 and ¶0052 discloses mirror driving unit 52 is formed from, for example, an electrically-driven actuator such as a motor), and an axis of tilt of the second mirror (32) (Fig. 1 and ¶0052 discloses mirror driving unit 52 changes the display position of virtual image 300 projected on target space 400 in a longitudinal direction by rotating at least second mirror 32, in a direction of arrow A1 in FIG. 1, about rotation axis 321 along a transverse direction of display surface 20); the cooperative adjustment (¶0065, ¶0072 and ¶0076 disclose position correcting unit 4 causes both first correcting unit 41 and second correcting unit 42 as a combination to change the display position of virtual image 300) comprises adjusting the corresponding position of the mirror using a motor (¶0052 discloses mirror driving unit 52 changes the direction of second mirror 32, and a display position of each virtual image 300 relative to main body unit 1 changes… Mirror driving unit 52 is formed from, for example, an electrically-driven actuator such as a motor); and adjusting the perceived region within the display region using a video timing control (¶0051 and ¶0064 disclose the display controller 51 determines a position of image 700, and changes the display position of each virtual image 300 by changing the position of image 700 on display surface 20) to selectively activate the plurality of lines to vary a portion of the display region (¶0102 discloses scanning unit 242 performs a raster scan operation of two-dimensional scanning light over a plurality of sequential display lines whose position is controlled to shift the image on the display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lambert for the purpose of adjusting a display position of a virtual image in accordance with various vibrations exerted on a display device (¶0016).
Regarding claim(s) 9, this/these apparatus claim(s) has/have similar limitations as method claim(s) 2, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim(s) 14, this/these apparatus claim(s) has/have similar limitations as method claim(s) 7, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 15, Lambert discloses [a head-up display arrangement] (abstract) to:
receive a user input (Fig. 1, ¶0005-¶0007, ¶0015 and ¶0019 discloses controller 14 for adjusting the image data in response to driver input from the driver input device 12);
determine, based on the user input, a position of a perceived region (¶0015 discloses adjustment of the head up display for the height of the driver (e.g., by rotating a mirror) may undesirably change the perceived vertical height of graphics relative to the vehicle in front), wherein a display region includes the perceived region (¶0005 discloses the software that places the graphical images on the display internal to the HUD, such that the displayed graphical image corresponds to the perceived region);
determine, based on the position of the perceived region, a variance of at least one or more lines… is outside an eyebox of a user (¶0016 discloses compensate for the commanded vertical position of graphics displayed on virtual image 24, and for the perceived change in the vertical position of virtual image 24, caused by the vertical adjustment of eye box 26);
calculate, based on the variance of the least one or more lines being outside the eyebox of the user, [a position] of a… mirror (¶0017-¶0018 discloses the HUD can determine the setting of the mirror angle that adjusts for the driver's height. Software may be used to compensate in the image data for any change in the apparent height of the HUD virtual image above the road); and
cause, based on the corresponding position of the mirror and the determined variance of the at least one or more lines, the perceived region to appear within the eyebox of the user (Fig. 2 and ¶0019 discloses right half of the drawing shows eyebox 26 after the driver has adjusted its vertical position, and virtual image 24 after software within HUD controller 14 has adjusted the position of virtual image 24 within eyebox 26 to compensate for the vertical adjustment of eyebox 26).
Lambert doesn’t disclose one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:…, and an axis of tilt of a mirror; the cooperative adjustment comprises adjusting the corresponding position of the mirror using a motor; and adjusting the perceived region within the display region using a video timing control to selectively activate the plurality of lines to vary a portion of the display region.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kasazumi discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing processor-executable instructions (¶0089 discloses a computer program, or a recording medium storing a program) that, when executed by at least one processor (¶0050 discloses a microcomputer including a central processing unit (CPU)), cause the at least one processor to:…, and an axis of tilt of a mirror (32) (Fig. 1 and ¶0052 discloses mirror driving unit 52 changes the display position of virtual image 300 projected on target space 400 in a longitudinal direction by rotating at least second mirror 32, in a direction of arrow A1 in FIG. 1, about rotation axis 321 along a transverse direction of display surface 20); the cooperative adjustment (¶0065, ¶0072 and ¶0076 disclose position correcting unit 4 causes both first correcting unit 41 and second correcting unit 42 as a combination to change the display position of virtual image 300) comprises adjusting the corresponding position of the mirror using a motor (¶0052 discloses mirror driving unit 52 changes the direction of second mirror 32, and a display position of each virtual image 300 relative to main body unit 1 changes… Mirror driving unit 52 is formed from, for example, an electrically-driven actuator such as a motor); and adjusting the perceived region within the display region using a video timing control (¶0051 and ¶0064 disclose the display controller 51 determines a position of image 700, and changes the display position of each virtual image 300 by changing the position of image 700 on display surface 20) to selectively activate the plurality of lines to vary a portion of the display region (¶0102 discloses scanning unit 242 performs a raster scan operation of two-dimensional scanning light over a plurality of sequential display lines whose position is controlled to shift the image on the display).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lambert for the purpose of adjusting a display position of a virtual image in accordance with various vibrations exerted on a display device (¶0016).
Regarding claim(s) 16, this/these CRM claim(s) has/have similar limitations as method claim(s) 2 and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim(s) 20, this/these CRM claim(s) has/have similar limitations as method claim(s) 7 and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
5. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Kasazumi and in further view of Takatoh et al. (US 2020/0012103 A1, hereinafter referred as “Takatoh”).
Regarding claim 5, Lambert as modified doesn’t disclose the method of claim 1, wherein causing the perceived region to appear within the eyebox of the user comprises controlling a motor to drive a tilt of the mirror to thereby change a tilt position of the mirror.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takatoh discloses wherein causing the perceived region to appear within the eyebox of the user comprises controlling a motor to drive a tilt of the mirror to thereby change a tilt position of the mirror (¶0034-¶0035 discloses the driver 14 operates a pushbutton switch as an operation means described later to adjust the angle of the concave mirror 41 such that the display light L1 is reflected to the eye position of the operator 14 (namely, the operator can visually recognize the virtual image V). At this time, the virtual image V becomes movable (adjustable in position) in a vertical (upper/lower) direction orthogonal to a horizontal direction of the windshield 13, corresponding to the operation of the pushbutton switch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lambert so the operator can visually recognize the virtual image V (¶0035).
6. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Kasazumi, in further view of Takatoh, and in further view of Ishibashi et al. (US 2017/0038587 A1, hereinafter referred as “Ishibashi”).
Regarding claim 6, Lambert as modified doesn’t disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the tilt of the mirror is based on at least one preset positional interval corresponding to a foundational position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishibashi discloses wherein the tilt of the mirror is based on at least one preset positional interval (¶0067 discloses the stepping motor 41 is driven at an angle obtained by dividing a step angle of the stepping motor 41 by a predetermined division number (the number of steps)) corresponding to a foundational position (¶0075 discloses necessary to perform the return-to-home operation for returning the stepping motor 41 to a mechanical reference position at the time of, for example, starting the display device 1 and then determine a home position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lambert so that once the home position is known, the controller can determine another mirror position.
7. Claim(s) 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Kasazumi and in further view of Takatoh.
Regarding claim 12, Lambert as modified doesn’t disclose the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the video display controller is further configured to cause the perceived region to appear within the eyebox of the user comprises controlling the motor to drive a tilt of the second mirror to thereby change a tilt position of the second mirror.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takatoh discloses wherein causing the perceived region to appear within the eyebox of the user comprises controlling a motor to drive a tilt of the second mirror to thereby change a tilt position of the second mirror (¶0034-¶0035 discloses the driver 14 operates a pushbutton switch as an operation means described later to adjust the angle of the concave mirror 41 such that the display light L1 is reflected to the eye position of the operator 14 (namely, the operator can visually recognize the virtual image V). At this time, the virtual image V becomes movable (adjustable in position) in a vertical (upper/lower) direction orthogonal to a horizontal direction of the windshield 13, corresponding to the operation of the pushbutton switch).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lambert so the operator can visually recognize the virtual image V (¶0035).
Regarding claim(s) 18, this/these CRM claim(s) has/have similar limitations as method claim(s) 5, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
8. Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lambert in view of Kasazumi, in further view of Takatoh, and still in further view of Ishibashi.
Regarding claim 13, Lambert as modified doesn’t disclose the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the tilt of the second mirror is based on at least one preset positional interval corresponding to a foundational position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ishibashi discloses wherein the tilt of the second mirror is based on at least one preset positional interval (¶0067 discloses the stepping motor 41 is driven at an angle obtained by dividing a step angle of the stepping motor 41 by a predetermined division number (the number of steps)) corresponding to a foundational position (¶0075 discloses necessary to perform the return-to-home operation for returning the stepping motor 41 to a mechanical reference position at the time of, for example, starting the display device 1 and then determine a home position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Lambert so that once the home position is known, the controller can determine another mirror position.
Regarding claim(s) 19, this/these CRM claim(s) has/have similar limitations as method claim(s) 6, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed July 09, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. With regards to arguments for independent claims 1, 8 and 15, applicant argues Kasazumi as modified by Lambert fails to disclose “cooperatively: adjusting the corresponding position of the mirror using a motor; and adjusting the perceived region within the display region using a video timing control to selectively activate the plurality of lines to vary a portion of the display region,” as recited in claims 1, 8 and 15. Specifically, applicant argues “Kasazumi discloses image repositioning, which may include moving where an image is drawn on a display surface.” See Applicant Arguments at pg. 10. However, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kasazumi teaches cooperative control of mirror position and electronic image position. Specifically, Kasazumi ¶0065 teaches that the second correcting unit controls mirror driving unit 52 to change the direction of mirror 32, while ¶0064 teaches that the first correcting unit controls display controller 51 to change the position of image 700 on display surface. Most significantly, ¶0076 expressly teaches operating the two correcting units as a combination to change the display position of the virtual image. Thus, Kasazumi teaches coordinated mechanical mirror adjustment and electronic image position adjustment, rather than two unrelated controls.
Kasazumi further teaches the claimed line-based display adjustment. ¶0102 teaches that scanning unit 242 performs a raster scan in longitudinal and transverse directions, while ¶0103 and ¶0105 teach changing the drawing position of image and forming the image at a position shifted from the image 700(X) by controlling the scanning unit. Accordingly, Kasazumi teaches or at least suggests selectively controlling the raster lines used to form the image so as to vary the portion of the display region in which the perceived image appears. Therefore, the claimed cooperative mirror adjustment and video controlled line-based image adjustment would have been obvious from Kazazumi’s combined mechanical and electronic correction scheme.
II. With regards to arguments for dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 examiner maintains Lambert in view of Kasazumi discloses each and every element of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, as elaborated above. Accordingly, dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 are also rejected, at least, by the virtue their dependency on respectively rejected base claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYANK J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 - 6:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ghebretinsae, Temesghen can be reached on (571) 272-3017. 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.
/PRIYANK J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights