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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 7-10 was/were cancelled; Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are independent claims. Claims 1 and 3-6 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) is withdrawn because of the amendment for overcoming the claim interpretation and the persuasive argument in the remark (page 5).
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, in the remarks (pages 5-7), the Applicant merely states that “Lee fails to cure the deficiencies of Okada. Clearly, this novel feature is not taught or suggested by the alleged combination of the cited references. Since Lee does not overcome the deficiencies of Okada, the combination of references fails to render the rejected claims obvious.”, but does not provide details of how Lee does not overcome the deficiencies of Okada (the feature “wherein, when an event is detected by the event detection unit, the imaging control unit switches an imaging direction of an in-vehicle imaging unit that has captured images in a rear area of the vehicle to an imaging direction appropriate for a content of the event that has occurred”). Thus, the Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Moreover, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the reasons for combining the references are clearly stated in the rejection (i.e. starting with “Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art…” in the rejection).
For the reasons above, the Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Okada and Lee/Xiao does teach features as claimed in claim 1 and 5-6.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments in the remark (pages 5-7) with respect to claim(s) 1 and 5-6 regarding the newly added limitation have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3 and should be cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a seat detected” in the second wherein clause which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Paragraph 0032 does mention “detects objects such as the rear glass or the side glass from the video images”. However, a seat is not the rear glass or the side glass. Thus, there is no support the feature as claimed. If the Applicant believes otherwise, the Applicant is welcome to point out where in the specification the support for the feature as claimed.
Claims 3-4 depending from claim 1 are also rejected for being dependent of the base claim.
Claims 5-6 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 are also rejected for the same reason above.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (WO 2019176391 A1; published date 09/12/2019; using US 20200412944 A1 for translation) in views of Lee (KR-101374211-B1) and Brunner (US 20110249961 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches A dashboard camera (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute:
an event detection unit configured to detect an event that has occurred in an own vehicle (paras. 0030-0032);
an imaging control unit configured to detect brightness inside the vehicle and brightness outside the vehicle, and switch, when the event has been detected by the event detection unit, imaging conditions of an imaging apparatus that captures images of an area including an interior of the vehicle from imaging conditions appropriate for the brightness inside the vehicle to imaging conditions appropriate for the brightness outside the vehicle (Fig. 2; para. 0029; “For example, the imaging condition determiner 34 defines a first reference point 84 in a frontward area A in the image shown in FIG. 2 and determines the first imaging condition so as to optimize the brightness and chromaticity at the first reference point 84. Further, the imaging condition determiner 34 defines a second reference point 86 in the rearward area C in the image shown in FIG. 2 and determines the second imaging condition so as to optimize the brightness and chromaticity at the second reference point 86”; para. 0037: “The imaging condition determiner 34 determines the first imaging condition related to at least one of exposure and color of the camera 42 with reference to the scene outside the vehicle and determines the second imaging condition related to at least one of exposure of the and color camera 42 with reference to the scene inside the vehicle (S10). The imaging controller 14 causes the camera 42 to capture the first image, in which the first imaging condition is used, and the second image, in which the second imaging condition is used, in temporally different frames, and the image acquisition interface 22 captures the first image data and the second image data (S12). The image recorder 30 causes the recorder 54 to record moving image data based on the first image (S14)”; para. 0025: “The imaging controller 14 may cause the camera 42 to capture the first image and the second image alternately” to alternately switch between the first and the second imaging conditions; the switching is performed when a safety event has been detected and when not detected); and
a recording control unit configured to cause a recording apparatus to record video images captured by the imaging apparatus (paras. 0021, 0025, 0037),
wherein imaging conditions appropriate for an environment inside the vehicle, and wherein imaging conditions appropriate for an environment outside the vehicle (Fig. 2; para. 0029; imaging condition determiner 34 defines a reference point [84 and 86] or a reference area [A and C] on an image captured by the camera 42 and determines an imaging condition so that the condition such as exposure and color at the reference point or in the reference area is optimized),
but fails to teach
wherein, when an event is detected by the event detection unit, the imaging control unit switches an imaging direction of an in-vehicle imaging unit that has captured images in a rear area of the vehicle to an imaging direction appropriate for a content of the event that has occurred.
wherein imaging conditions appropriate for an environment inside the vehicle include an exposure based on an average value of a luminance of a face or a seat detected from the video images captured by the in-vehicle imaging unit, and
wherein imaging conditions appropriate for an environment outside the vehicle include an exposure based on an average value of a luminance of at least one of an object that allows light from the outside the vehicle to pass through and an object outside the vehicle, the respective objects being detected from the video images captured by the in-vehicle imaging unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lee teaches
wherein, when an event is detected by the event detection unit, the imaging control unit switches an imaging direction of an in-vehicle imaging unit that has captured images in a rear area of the vehicle to an imaging direction appropriate for a content of the event that has occurred (Figs. 1-5; col. 3, lines 5-11: “shooting 360 degrees through one camera, and can also be recorded and stored by changing the camera angle according to the event occurred in the vehicle”; col. 4, lines 23-42: “camera module 101 is installed at the lower portion of the room mirror RM to photograph the vehicle periphery from the front and the rear side, and at the same time, the interior of the vehicle can be simultaneously photographed…The sensor unit 120 outputs the sensing data according to the occurrence of the event to the controller 130, and the controller 130 controls the image capturing unit 110 to capture the generated event”; col. 7, lines 3-8: “By controlling the shooting angle of the camera module 101, when the event occurs, the camera module 101 automatically records the event occurrence site. In addition, when the driver parks the vehicle in the safety zone, the camera module 101 can be set to photograph only the orientation except the safety zone, thereby preventing unnecessary images from being stored in the memory unit”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Lee in Okada to have wherein, when an event is detected by the event detection unit, the imaging control unit switches an imaging direction of an in-vehicle imaging unit that has captured images in a rear area of the vehicle to an imaging direction appropriate for a content of the event that has occurred for utilizing a rotating camera to monitor the inside and the surroundings of a vehicle simultaneously enabling no blind spots and image distortion with improved resolution yielding a predicted result.
Moreover, in the same field of endeavor Brunner teaches
wherein imaging conditions appropriate for an environment inside the vehicle include an exposure based on an average value of a luminance of a face (first face) or a seat detected from the video images captured by the in-vehicle imaging unit, and wherein imaging conditions appropriate for an environment outside the vehicle include an exposure based on an average value of a luminance of at least one of an object that allows light from the outside the vehicle to pass through and an object (another face) outside the vehicle, the respective objects being detected from the video images captured by the in-vehicle imaging unit (Fig. 13; para. 0057: “process for face detection-assisted dynamic auto exposure using multiple qualifying faces begins at Step 1300… drive camera exposure parameters, e.g., exposure time or gain, based at least in part on a weighted average of the pixel values within the exposure metering regions that are inset over the "qualifying face(s)" (Step 1312).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Brunner in the combination to have wherein imaging conditions appropriate for an environment inside the vehicle include an exposure based on an average value of a luminance of a face or a seat detected from the video images captured by the in-vehicle imaging unit, and wherein imaging conditions appropriate for an environment outside the vehicle include an exposure based on an average value of a luminance of at least one of an object that allows light from the outside the vehicle to pass through and an object outside the vehicle, the respective objects being detected from the video images captured by the in-vehicle imaging unit for optimizing exposure of multiple faces improving obtained images of different faces yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason in claim 1. In addition, Okada teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 3; para. 0022) storing an imaging control program for causing a computer to execute: (features as claimed in claim 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (WO 2019176391 A1; using US 20200412944 A1 for translation) in views of Lee (KR-101374211-B1) and Brunner (US 20110249961 A1) as claimed in claim 1, and further in view of Kumagai et al (US 20190023241 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Okada, Lee and Brunner teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
wherein the event detection unit detects occurrence of a misapplication prevention operation performed by a misapplication prevention apparatus that prevents misapplication of at least one of an accelerator and a brake as an event that has occurred in the own vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kumagai teaches
wherein the event detection unit detects occurrence of a misapplication prevention operation performed by a misapplication prevention apparatus that prevents misapplication of at least one of an accelerator and a brake as an event that has occurred in the own vehicle (para. 0023; “The automatic emergency braking may be performed when the driver fails to perform an action appropriate for avoiding the contact in spite of the foregoing warning made by the warning unit. Non-limiting examples of a case where the driver fails to perform the action appropriate for avoiding the contact may include a case where the driver fails to press down on a brake pedal, or a case where the driver fails to perform steering by means of a steering wheel”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Kumagai in the combination to have wherein the event detection unit detects occurrence of a misapplication prevention operation performed by a misapplication prevention apparatus that prevents misapplication of at least one of an accelerator and a brake as an event that has occurred in the own vehicle for enabling an automatic emergency braking capability improving vehicle safety yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 reciting features corresponding to claim 3 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Alternative Rejection
Xiao et al (CN-113761973-A) also teaches wherein, when an event is detected by the event detection unit, the imaging control unit switches an imaging direction of an in-vehicle imaging unit that has captured images in a rear area of the vehicle to an imaging direction appropriate for a content of the event that has occurred (page 4: “the camera in the vehicle can be a rotatable camera installed in the centre of the top of the vehicle; when the vehicle-mounted device activates the detection mode, the vehicle-mounted device according to the received parking, opening door, closing any data or parking, opening the door; closing the data of continuous action, rotating the camera to a predetermined position to collect the scene image in the vehicle. For example, the vehicle-mounted device receives the data of the right door opening, the vehicle-mounted device according to the data control camera rotates to the direction towards the right front door, so as to collect the target area of the right front door. it can save resource and improve the probability of effectively collecting”).
Xiao can be used in place of the above Lee (KR-101374211-B1) to teach the feature with the same reason and/or saving resource and improving the probability of effectively collecting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637