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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 03/16/2026, have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Amended claim 30 now further limits claim 17 by specifying a particular concurrent frame-rate relationship - namely, reduction of the mirror image frame rate while the surround image frame rate is maintained or increased- which is not required by claim 17. Accordingly, claim 30 therefor properly narrows the subject matter of its parent claim.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 17 recites “reduce a frame rate of the mirror image signal. . . concurrently with the frame rate of the surround image signal being at least one of maintained at an initial value and increased from the initial value.” Thus claim 17 requires what Applicant argues it does not, “namely, reduction of the mirror image frame rate while the surround image frame rate is maintained or increased.”
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 17 recites “a surround view camera” however the specification lacks antecedent basis for this claim terminology. While the specification includes “surround camera 104,” as in [0020]-[0021], this is not a surround view camera.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17, from which claim 19 depends on, already recites “a surround view camera configured to generate a surround image signal.” Claim 19, which recites “a surround camera configured to generate the surround image signal,” does not further limit claim 17.
Claim 17, from which claim 30 depends on, already recites reducing a frame rate of the mirror image signal based on reduced vehicle speed and concurrently maintaining/increasing the surround image signal. Furthermore, to the extent Applicant argues that claim 30 includes “reduction of the mirror image frame rate while the surround image frame rate is maintained or increased,” this is already in claim 17 with “reduce a frame rate of the mirror image signal. . . concurrently with the frame rate of the surround image signal being at least one of maintained at an initial value and increased from the initial value.” Thus claim 30 does not further limit claim 17.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
Claims 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M PONTIUS whose telephone number is (571)270-7687. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4.
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, Sath V Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. 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.
/JAMES M PONTIUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights