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 Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed 1-29-26 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections(s).
Remarks
3. Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 15-21 has been elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being vague and indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention for the reasons stated below.
Claims 1, 18, and 21 recites “wherein the windscreen, the mirror, or the surface each independently include”. However, the Examiner could not determine whether or not the mobile means contains all of the above of a windscreen, mirror, or surface since the claim previously recites the emitting to a windscreen, to a mirror or (emphasis added) to a surface. Hence, the claim is unclear as to whether there is only one of the above elements or if there are all of the elements of a windscreen, mirror, or surface. The Examiner interprets the claim language to be that of “wherein the windscreen, the mirror or the surface include a transparent lens or a translucent optical waveguide through which a user of the mobile means can view the at least one image, excluding “each independently” as to be consistent with the rest of the claim. Appropriate Correction is required.
Claims 2-3, 7-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected for being dependent on the above independent claims but would be overcome upon overcoming the above 112b rejections.
For the reasons stated above and detailed below, the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al., US 2019/0132555 in view of Ding, US 2020/0302647, in further view of Prabhakar et al., US 2019/0327415, and in further view of Geerlings et al., US 2018/0105114.
Regarding claim 1, Chu teaches of a display device (See Fig.3, 116; Fig.4 display devices construed as the display with interconnected buses and sensors/cameras) comprising:
processors respectively at different locations in a mobile means, configured to capture images in different directions, and configured to sense proximate objects (See Figs.1-2 and [0022] which discloses of multiple processors/cameras/sensors at different locations in a mobile means of a vehicle, motorcycle etc. which capture images in different directions/field of views and of detecting/sensing proximate objects);
a main display panel on an instrument board of the mobile means, and configured to display at least one image comprising an image captured by the multiprocessors, a surrounding-environment-information image, a driving-environment-information image, an instrument-information image, a driving-information image, or a safety-state-information image (See Fig.3 and [0028] wherein either of the two display screens on the upper portions of 116 and the at least one screen display module is the other display screen that is not the main display panel); and
a main processor configured to control an image display operation of the main display panel so that the at least one image is displayed on the main display panel (See Fig.3 and [0028]); and
at least one screen display module, separately from the main display panel, for emitting at least one image of the images captured by the multiprocessors, the surrounding-environment-information image, the driving-environment-information image, the instrument-information image, the driving-information image, and the safety-state-information image (See Chu, Fig.3; wherein either of the two display screens on the upper portions of 116 and the at least one screen display module is the other display screen that is not the main display panel),
wherein the at least one image displayed by the main display panel is different from the at least one image displayed by the at least one screen display module (See Chu, Fig.3; wherein either of the two display screens on the upper portions of 116 and the at least one screen display module is the other display screen that is not the main display panel).
Chu is silent with respect to the processors being that of multiprocessors and of sensing distances to the object.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ding teaches of the processors being that of multiprocessors (See [0018] depth camera has processor which can be embodied as a multi-processor) and of sensing distances to the object (See Figs.4-5; [0056]-[0057] detecting distances to object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chu to have incorporated the teachings of Ding for the mere benefit of using depth cameras to detect potential objects and hazards near the vehicle.
The combination of Chu and Ding is silent with respect to emitting to a windscreen, to a mirror, or to a surface of any one cover of the mobile means.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Prabhakar teaches of emitting to a windscreen, to a mirror, or to a surface of any one cover of the mobile means (See Fig.3; [0071]-[0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chu and Ding to have incorporated the teachings of Prabhakar for the mere benefit of allowing the driver to view the images in a more convenient location.
The combination is silent with respect to wherein the windscreen, the mirror, or the surface include a transparent lens or a translucent optical waveguide through which a user of the mobile means can view the at least one image.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Geerlings teaches of the windscreen, the mirror, or the surface include a transparent lens or a translucent optical waveguide through which a user of the mobile means can view the at least one image (See Fig.1 and [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Chu, Ding and Prabhakar to have incorporated the teachings of Geerlings for the mere benefit of being able to output the image to a display mirror.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising:
at least one sub-display panel for displaying at least one second image that is different from the at least one image displayed on the main display panel (See Chu, Fig.3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the display device of claim 2, wherein the main processor is configured to control an image display operation of each of the at least one sub-display panel and the at least one screen display module so that the at least one image is displayed on the at least one sub-display panel and the at least one screen display module (See Chu, Fig.3, and [0028] wherein the multiple views can be displayed on the screen).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the multiprocessors are configured to display and emit images from the main processor under the control of the main processor (See Chu, Fig.3; [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein the multiprocessors are respectively in any one of a front direction, a rear direction, a side direction, or a diagonal direction with respect to the mobile means (See Chu, Figs.2-3).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the display device of claim 8, wherein first to third multiprocessors of the multiprocessors are on surfaces of a left rearview mirror in the front direction, the side direction, and the rear direction, respectively, configured to capture some images in at least one of a front left direction, a left side direction, the rear direction, or a left diagonal direction of the mobile means, and configured to sense one or more of some of the distances to some of the proximate objects (See Chu, Figs.2-3 wherein at least three of the cameras are on the surfaces on the same side as the left rearview mirror for capturing images in a front left, left, rear, and left diagonal view; analysis of claim 1 with respect to sensing distance proximate to objects and consistent of applicants specification of Figs. 1, 5, and 14 with respect to rearview mirror directions), and
wherein fourth to sixth multiprocessors of the multiprocessors are on surfaces of a right rearview mirror in the front direction, the side direction, and the rear direction, respectively, configured to capture other images in at least one of a front right direction, a right side direction, the rear direction, or a right diagonal direction of the mobile means, and configured to sense one or more of others of the distances to others of the proximate objects (See Chu, Figs.2-3 wherein at least three of the cameras are on the surfaces on the same side as the right rearview mirror for capturing images in a front right, right, rear, and right diagonal view; analysis of claim 1 with respect to sensing distance proximate to objects and consistent of applicants specification of Figs. 1, 5, and 14 with respect to rearview mirror directions).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein the multiprocessors are at different respective locations of at least one of a top cowling cover, a bottom cowling cover, a front grille, a side grille, a front cover, a side cover, a taillight cover, or one or more rearview mirrors of the mobile means (See Chu, Figs. 2-3, which reads on at least a top or side cover).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches a display device of claim 10, wherein a first multiprocessor of the multiprocessors is in a front direction of the mobile means on a first rearview mirror of the one or more rearview mirrors or the front cover of the mobile means (See Chu, Fig.2, 108-3; 108-1 first rearview mirror),
wherein a second multiprocessor is in one side direction of the mobile means on a second rearview mirror of the one or more rearview mirrors or the top cowling cover of the mobile means (See Chu, Fig.2, 108-6;108-7;108-8 a top cowling cover),
wherein a third multiprocessor is in another side direction of the mobile means on a third rearview mirror of the one or more rearview mirrors or the top cowling cover of the mobile means (See Chu, Fig.2, 108-6;108-7;108-8 a top cowling cover),
wherein a fourth multiprocessor is in one side diagonal direction of the mobile means on a fourth rearview mirror of the one or more rearview mirrors or one side cover of the mobile means (See Chu, Fig.2, 108-2;108-4 one side cover and another side cover),
wherein a fifth multiprocessor is in another side diagonal direction of the mobile means on a fifth rearview mirror of the one or more rearview mirrors or another side cover of the mobile means (See Chu, Fig.2,108-2;108-4 one side cover and another side cover), and
wherein a sixth multiprocessor is in a rear direction of the mobile means on a sixth rearview mirror of the one or more rearview mirrors or a taillight direction cover of the mobile means (See Chu, Fig.2,108-5, taillight direction cover).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the display device of claim 7, wherein first to sixth multiprocessors of the multiprocessors are at six respective locations of the mobile means, configured to capture images in six respective surface directions, configured to sense the distances to the proximate objects in the six respective surface directions, and configured display images from the main processor in the six respective surface directions under the control of the main processor (See analysis of claims 1-3; fig.2).
Regarding claim 13, combination teaches the display device of claim 12, wherein the first multiprocessor comprises a first camera module, a first sensing module, and a first display module (See Chu, Fig-2; Fig.4; [0020], [0022]; [0028] which discloses of at least a camera module which houses the camera, memory, and optional control system; the sensing module which is construed to be the actual image sensor of the camera; and a first display module which is construed to be that of the serializers for providing output of the image data to the computer vision ECU and infotainment for display),
wherein the second multiprocessor comprises a second camera module, a second sensing module, and a second display module (See Chu, Fig-2; Fig.4; [0020], [0022]; [0028]),
wherein the third multiprocessor comprises a third camera module, a third sensing module, and a third display module (See Chu, Fig-2; Fig.4; [0020], [0022]; [0028]),
wherein the fourth multiprocessor comprises a fourth camera module, a fourth sensing module, and a fourth display module (See Chu, Fig-2; Fig.4; [0020], [0022]; [0028]),
wherein the fifth multiprocessor comprises a fifth camera module, a fifth sensing module, and a fifth display module (See Chu, Fig-2; Fig.4; [0020], [0022]; [0028]), and
wherein the sixth multiprocessor comprises a sixth camera module, a sixth sensing module, and a sixth display module (See Chu, Fig-2; Fig.4; [0020], [0022]; [0028]).
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 17, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, Chu, [0022] teaches of a two-wheeled vehicle of a motorcycle.
Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 2-3.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the operating-environment-information-providing system of the two-wheeled mobile device of claim 18, wherein the two-wheeled mobile device comprises an electric bicycle, a personal mobile device, a two-wheeled motor device, a two-wheeled parallel vehicle, a motorcycle, or logistics and construction machinery (See Chu, [0022] motorcycle).
Regarding claim 21, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
8. 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.
Contact
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights