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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/15/2025 have been considered but they are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
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 14-15, 20, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Warren (US 2022/0203898 A1 – hereinafter Warren) and Choi (US 2015/0165976 A1 – hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 14, Warren discloses a rear-view assembly for a vehicle (Figs. 1-3), comprising: a frame configured to be secured to the vehicle (Fig. 1 – a frame comprising a structure that supports for the mirror and an arm 6 secured to a vehicle); a housing secured to the frame (Figs. 1-3 – a housing secured to the frame and house the mirror structure); a first camera secured to the frame (Figs. 1-3; [0020] – a first camera, i.e. camera 2, is secured to the frame), wherein the first camera includes a first lens directed in a rearwardly-facing direction (Figs. 1-3; claim 1 – camera 2 having a lens looking rearwardly-facing direction); a reflective element ([0020]-[0021]; Figs. 1-3 – at least a mirror 5); and a bezel secured to the frame and surrounding a circumferential edge of the reflective element, wherein the bezel includes a bezel aperture configured for the a first lens to view the rearwardly-facing direction (Figs. 1-3 - bezel 75 secured to the frame and surrounding a circumferential edge of the mirror), wherein the first camera is offset with respect to the reflective element in a vertical plane, wherein the first camera is at least partially positioned in front of the reflective element when viewed from a rear end of the vehicle (Figs. 1-3 - viewed from a rear end of the vehicle, the camera 2 is positioned before the mirror 5, thus, at least in (i) a vertical plane between the camera and the mirror or (ii) a vertical plane coinciding with the plane of the mirror, the camera is offset with respect to the mirror).
Warren does not disclose an actuator secured to the frame; a reflective element secured to the actuator, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust an angle of the reflective element to change a field of view of a driver of the vehicle.
Choi discloses an actuator secured to a frame (Fig. 2; [0028] – an actuator secured to a frame which secures to the mirror structure to a vehicle); a reflective element secured to the actuator, wherein the actuator is configured to adjust an angle of the reflective element to change a field of view of a driver of the vehicle ([0028]; Fig. 2 – reflective element 50 is secured to an actuator 70, the actuator is configured to adjust an angle of the reflective element to change the field of view of a driver of the vehicle by rotating the reflective element about an axis 68 as shown in Figs. 3-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Choi into the assembly taught by Warren to allow adjustment of the reflective element to provide the driver with a best view.
Regarding claim 15, Warren also discloses the frame includes a first cavity to house the first camera (Figs. 1-3; [0020] – the frame includes a camera compartment to house the first camera).
Regarding claim 20, Warren also discloses the first camera is secured in the first cavity of the frame with a first cap having a first void configured for the first lens to view the rearwardly-facing direction (Figs. 1-3; [0020] – the frame includes a camera compartment with a first cap having a first void configured for the first lens to view the rearwardly-facing direction).
Regarding claim 28, Warren also discloses the bezel is housed in the housing, and wherein the bezel aperture is configured to allow the first camera to be positioned to view the rearwardly-facing direction (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 31, Warren also discloses a vehicle comprising the rear-view assembly (Figs. 1-3) to provide a field of view to a driver on a display ([0011]; [0021]) with at least a part of the field of view in the rearwardly facing and outwardly and/or downwardly facing directions (Figs. 1-3 – a FOV of a camera 2 directed in a rearwardly-facing and outwardly facing directions).
Claims 16-19, 21-24, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warren and Choi as applied to claims 14-15, 20, 28, and 31 above, and further in view of Lettis et al. (US 2022/0176880 A1 – hereinafter Lettis).
Regarding claim 16, see the teachings of Warren and Choi as discussed in claim 14 above. However, Warren and Choi do not disclose a second camera that includes a second lens, wherein the second camera is secured to the frame.
Lettis also discloses a second camera that includes a second lens, wherein the second camera is secured to a frame ([0035]-[0042]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lettis into the assembly taught by Warren and Choi to provide extra camera FOVs to the driver, thus enhancing the driver’s awareness of the surrounding environment while driving.
Regarding claim 17, Lettis also discloses the frame includes a second cavity that houses the a second camera ([0035]-[0042]).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Lettis into the assembly has been discussed in claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 18, Lettis also discloses the second lens is directed in an outwardly and/or downwardly facing direction ([0035]-[0042]).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Lettis into the assembly has been discussed in claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 19, Lettis also discloses the housing includes a housing aperture configured to allow the second lens of the second camera to view the outwardly and/or downwardly facing direction ([0035]-[0042]).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Lettis into the assembly has been discussed in claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 21, see the teachings of Warren and Choi as discussed in claim 5 above. However, Warren and Choi do not disclose the first camera is secured in the first cavity of the frame with a first fastener.
Lettis discloses a camera is secured in a cavity of a frame with a first fastener (Figs. 2B-2C; Figs. 3B-3C; [0163]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lettice into the assembly taught by Warren and Choi to conveniently secure the camera to the frame.
Regarding claim 22, Lettis also discloses the first fastener comprises a screw and/or a snap-fit connection (Figs. 2B-2C; Figs. 3B-3C; [0163] – at least snap-fit connection).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Lettis into the assembly has been discussed in claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 23, Lettis also discloses the second camera is secured in the second cavity of the frame with a second fastener ([0163]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the further teachings of Lettice into the assembly proposed in claim 17 to conveniently secure the second camera to the frame.
Regarding claim 24, Lettis also discloses the second fastener comprises a screw and/or a snap-fit connection ([0163] – at least snap-fit connection).
The motivation for incorporating the teachings of Lettis into the assembly has been discussed in claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 33, see the teachings of Warren and Choi as discussed in claim 14 above. Warren also discloses the first camera and the reflective element are offset from each other in a vertical plane, and wherein the first camera is positioned in front of the reflective element when viewed from the rear end of the vehicle (Figs. 1-3 - viewed from a rear end of the vehicle, the camera 2 is positioned before the mirror 5, thus, at least in (i) a vertical plane between the camera and the mirror or (ii) a vertical plane coinciding with the plane of the mirror, the camera is offset with respect to the mirror).
However, Warren and Choi do not disclose a second camera that includes a second lens, wherein the second camera is also secured to the frame, wherein the first camera, the second camera and the reflective element are offset from each other in a vertical plane, and wherein the second camera is positioned behind the reflective element when viewed from the rear end of the vehicle.
Lettis discloses a second camera that includes a second lens, wherein the second camera is also secured to the frame ([0035]-[0042] – a second camera secured to the frame and inside a mirror housing), wherein the second camera and the reflective element are offset from each other in a vertical plane, and wherein the second camera is positioned behind the reflective element when viewed from the rear end of the vehicle (Figs. 1-3 - viewed from a rear end of the vehicle, the second camera is positioned behind the mirror, thus, at least in (i) a vertical plane between the second camera and the mirror or (ii) a vertical plane coinciding with the plane of the mirror, the second camera is offset with respect to the mirror).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lettis into the assembly taught by Warren and Choi to provide extra camera FOVs to the driver, thus enhancing the driver’s awareness of the surrounding environment while driving. Further, with the incorporated feature from Lettis, the assembly would have had the features of “viewed from the rear end of the vehicle, the first camera is positioned in front of the mirror, which is positioned in front the second camera”, and “the first camera, the second camera and the reflective element are offset from each other in a vertical plane.”
Regarding claim 34, Warren discloses a rear-view assembly for a vehicle operable in a fold position or an unfolded position, the rear-view assembly comprising: a frame configured to be secured to the vehicle (Fig. 1 – a frame comprising a structure that supports for the mirror and an arm 6 secured to a vehicle); a first camera configured to provide a first field of view (Figs. 1-3 – camera 2 provides a first FOV), wherein the first camera is fixedly secured to the frame (Figs. 1-3 – camera 5 is fixed to the frame); and a reflective element ([0020]-[0021]; Figs. 1-3 – at least a mirror 5), wherein the first camera, and the reflective element are configured such that, the first camera is at least partially positioned forwardly from both the reflective element when viewed from the rear end of the vehicle, when the rear view assembly is in the unfolded position (Figs. 1-3 - viewed from a rear end of the vehicle, when the rear view assembly is in unfolded position as shown in Figs. 1-3, the camera 2 is positioned forwardly from the mirror 5).
However, Warren does not disclose an actuator mounted on the frame; a second camera configured to provide a second field of view, wherein the second camera is fixedly secured to the frame; and a reflective element configured to be coupled with the actuator, wherein the actuator is adapted to adjust the reflective element to capture a third field of view and the reflective element is movable with respect to the frame, wherein the first camera, the second camera, and the reflective element are configured such that, the second camera is at least partially positioned rearwardly of the reflective element when viewed from a rear end of the vehicle.
Choi discloses an actuator mounted on a frame (Fig. 2; [0028] – an actuator mounted to a frame which secures to the mirror structure to a vehicle); and a reflective element configured to be coupled with the actuator, wherein the actuator is adapted to adjust the reflective element to capture a third field of view and the reflective element is movable with respect to the frame ([0028]; Fig. 2 – reflective element 50 is secured to an actuator 70, the actuator is configured to adjust an angle of the reflective element to change the field of view of a driver of the vehicle by rotating the reflective element about an axis 68 as shown in Figs. 3-4).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Choi into the assembly taught by Warren to allow adjustment of the reflective element to provide the driver with a best view.
However, Warren and Choi do not disclose a second camera configured to provide a second field of view, wherein the second camera is fixedly secured to the frame, wherein the first camera, the second camera, and the reflective element are configured such that, the second camera is at least partially positioned rearwardly of the reflective element when viewed from a rear end of the vehicle.
Lettis discloses a second camera configured to provide a second field of view, wherein the second camera is fixedly secured to the frame ([0035]-[0042]), wherein the second camera and the reflective element are configured such that, the second camera is at least partially positioned rearwardly of the reflective element when viewed from a rear end of the vehicle (Figs. 1-3 - viewed from a rear end of the vehicle, the second camera is positioned behind the mirror, thus, at least partially positioned rearwardly of the mirror).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Lettis into the assembly taught by Warren and Choi to provide extra camera FOVs to the driver, thus enhancing the driver’s awareness of the surrounding environment while driving. Further, with the incorporated feature from Lettis, the assembly would have had the features of “viewed from the rear end of the vehicle, the first camera is positioned forwardly from mirror, the second camera is positioned rearwardly from the mirror”, thus, the “first camera, the second camera, and the reflective element are configured such that the second camera is at least partially positioned rearwardly of the reflective element when viewed from a rear end of the vehicle, and the first camera is at least partially positioned forwardly from both the reflective element and the second camera when viewed from the rear end of the vehicle, when the rear view assembly is in the unfolded position.”
Regarding claim 35, Warren also discloses the first lens is positioned in front of the reflective element when viewed from the rear end of the vehicle (Figs. 1-3).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484