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 .
Current Status
The amendment to the title is accepted, and the objection withdrawn.
The amendment(s) to claim(s) resolve the issues regarding clarity, and the rejection under 35 US 112 is withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 12, 13 and 19 are amended.
Claim(s) 4-6, 10-11, 15-18 is/are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-13, 15-20 is/are pending; claims 3 and 14 are canceled. With this Office Action, claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection due to amendments filed 12/30/25. Although the limitations of canceled claimed 3 and 14 are included in the amendments to the independent claims, additional language and the nature of incorporation herein necessitate new ground of rejection.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, 13, 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozono (US 2022/0032846) in view of Lee (US 20100039722).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Kozono discloses an apparatus for controlling side-view mirrors comprises a first mirror (Msl) and a second mirror (Msr) and configured to provide a field of view for a rear of a vehicle (see figures 1-3), said apparatus comprising a driving module (31, 32) configured to adjust positions of the side-view mirrors (see paragraph 0038 along with figures 4-12); a camera (21) comprising at least one camera (21a, 21b) and is inherently configured to record images to IPU (21c) shown in Fig. 4); a turn signal switch (27) configured to input a signal for indicating a vehicle moving direction (see paragraphs 0050-005); and a processor (1, 11, 12) adapted to determine the vehicle moving direction in response to the signal of the turn signal switch to recognize a lane from the images (see figures 4-12), and to calculate an included angle between the lane and the driving direction to control the driving module such that the positions of the side-view mirrors are adjusted according to the included angle (see figures 4-12), and additionally to recognize a lane from a front image recorded by the camera (para. 30 – driving assistance via onboard camera unit 21).
Kozono does not explicitly disclose to calculate an equation of a curve of the lane by connecting points or lines extracted from the lane, calculate an included angle between the lane and the vehicle moving direction based on the equation of the curve.
Kozono and Lee are related as vehicle driving assistance including relation to side-view mirrors.
Lee teaches to calculate an equation of a curve of the lane by connecting points or lines extracted from the lane, calculate an included angle between the lane and the vehicle moving direction based on the equation of the curve (Figs. 4-9; claims 4 and 8-9; note that the specific is equation is not defined by the claim, but Lee goes into equation details with respect to the claims and compensates for the vehicle’s motion in relation to the lanes). Benefits include optimized viewing experience and thus increased safety for driver and passengers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include specific calculations regarding the lane and vehicle motion relationship, as in Lee, in the system of Kozono so as to improve viewing experience and safety.
Regarding claim 2, the combination further discloses wherein the processor is adapted to determine that the vehicle will move to a left side when a left signal is received from a left switch of the signal switch, recognize a left lane of a driving lane, and determine that the vehicle will move to a right side when a right signal is received from a right switch, and recognize a right lane of the driving lane (Kozono, see paragraph 0050-0053 along with Fig. 6)),
Regarding claim 7, the combination further discloses wherein the processor is adapted to recognize the lane from a front image among the images of the camera (Kozono, see Fig. 1), and inherently calculates an equation of the lane connecting points or lines extracted from the lanes, and calculates the included angle based on the equation of the lane (see paragraphs 0053-0054), wherein the processor is adapted to apply a return command to the driving module to return the positions of the side-view mirrors to a reference position when it is determined that entry into the lane or movement to the lane is completed (see figures 7-10),
Regarding claim 8, the combination further discloses wherein the processor is adapted to determine that the movement to the lane is completed when the lane and the vehicle moving direction coincide with each other and the turn signal switch is switched off (Kozono, see figures 6-12).
Regarding claim 9, the combination further discloses wherein the driving module is configured to return the positions of the side-view mirrors to a preset reference position when the return command is input, and return the positions of the side-view mirrors to a position before the movement to the lane when the reference position is not set (Kozono, see figures 6-12). Note figures 1-12 along with the associated description thereof.
As to the method limitations of claims 12, 13, 19 and 20, such limitations are considered to be inherently met by the structure of the above combination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D. CARRUTH whose telephone number is (571)272-9791, who can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Supervisory Examiner Carruth by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Director Allana L Bidder, can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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.
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights