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 .
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 1, 3, 6-7, 9, 11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellambalase (US 20160193971) in view of Takenaga et al (US 6191704).
As to claim 1, Yellambalase discloses a display system comprising:
an opposite lane side camera that is positioned on an opposite lane side of a vehicle and is capable of capturing an image in at least a forward direction of the vehicle (FIGS. 2-3, camera 317 provides a view of zone 205 to the driver's side of the vehicle; see [0030], single camera with a wide angle lens may be used for each of these zones; see also [0047]); and
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as a monitor control unit (FIG. 3 and [0032], system controller 301) configured to cause a monitor (FIG. 3, displays 311, 313) to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle is in an opposite lane side turn ready state (FIG. 5 and [0045]-[0047], steps 501-507),
wherein, in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and an obstacle is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera (see [0047], [0052]).
Yellambalase fails to explicitly disclose wherein a crosswalk is detected.
However, Takenaga teaches displaying an image from a camera, in a case in which the vehicle starts to turn and a crosswalk is detected (FIG. 9; col. 2, lines 28-32; col. 10, lines 50-54; claim 1).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify Yellambalase using Takenaga’s teachings to include wherein, in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and a crosswalk is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera in order to recognize conditions around a host vehicle with a satisfactory response even under complex run environments, and greatly achieve an improvement in safety and a car automatic operation (Takenaga; col. 11, lines 3-7).
As to claim 3, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga further discloses wherein the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle is in a non-opposite lane side turn ready state (see [0047]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga further discloses further comprising a non-opposite lane side camera positioned on a non-opposite lane side of the vehicle and capable of imaging at least a lateral direction of the vehicle (FIGS. 2-3, camera 318 provides a view of zone 207 to the passenger's side of the vehicle).
As to claim 7, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga further discloses wherein, in a case in which the vehicle starts a non-opposite lane side turn and a crosswalk is detected, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in at least a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the non-opposite lane side camera (Yellambalase; see [0052]; Takenaga; FIG. 9; col. 2, lines 28-32; col. 10, lines 50-54; claim 1).
As to claim 9, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga further discloses wherein the opposite lane side turn ready state is determined based on an opposite lane side blinker operation of the vehicle (FIG. 5 and [0046], step 503).
As to claim 11, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga further discloses wherein the opposite lane side camera has an optical system and an imaging element configured to capture an optical image formed on a light-receiving surface by the optical system (see [0030], camera has a lens and an image sensor).
As to claim 15, Yellambalase discloses a vehicle (FIGS. 1-3) comprising:
an opposite lane side camera that is positioned on an opposite lane side of the vehicle and capable of capturing an image in at least a forward direction of the vehicle (FIGS. 2-3, camera 317 provides a view of zone 205 to the driver's side of the vehicle; see [0030], single camera with a wide angle lens may be used for each of these zones; see also [0047]);
a monitor (FIG. 3, displays 311, 313); and
a monitor control unit (FIG. 3 and [0032], system controller 301) configured to cause the monitor to display an image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle is in an opposite lane side turn ready state (FIG. 5 and [0045]-[0047], steps 501-507),
wherein, in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and an obstacle is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera (see [0047], [0052]).
Yellambalase fails to explicitly disclose wherein a crosswalk is detected.
However, Takenaga teaches displaying an image from a camera, in a case in which the vehicle starts to turn and a crosswalk is detected (FIG. 9; col. 2, lines 28-32; col. 10, lines 50-54; claim 1).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify Yellambalase using Takenaga’s teachings to include wherein, in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and a crosswalk is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera in order to recognize conditions around a host vehicle with a satisfactory response even under complex run environments, and greatly achieve an improvement in safety and a car automatic operation (Takenaga; col. 11, lines 3-7).
As to claim 16, Yellambalase discloses a control method (FIG. 5) of a display system (FIG. 3) having an opposite lane side camera that is disposed on an opposite lane side of a vehicle and capable of capturing an image in at least a forward direction of the vehicle (FIGS. 2-3, camera 317 provides a view of zone 205 to the driver's side of the vehicle; see [0030], single camera with a wide angle lens may be used for each of these zones; see also [0047]), the control method comprising:
performing monitor control that causes a monitor (FIG. 3, displays 311, 313) to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle in an opposite lane side turn ready state (FIG. 5 and [0045]-[0047], steps 501-507),
wherein, in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and an obstacle is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera (see [0047], [0052]).
Yellambalase fails to explicitly disclose wherein a crosswalk is detected.
However, Takenaga teaches displaying an image from a camera, in a case in which the vehicle starts to turn and a crosswalk is detected (FIG. 9; col. 2, lines 28-32; col. 10, lines 50-54; claim 1).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify Yellambalase using Takenaga’s teachings to include wherein, in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and a crosswalk is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera in order to recognize conditions around a host vehicle with a satisfactory response even under complex run environments, and greatly achieve an improvement in safety and a car automatic operation (Takenaga; col. 11, lines 3-7).
As to claim 17, Yellambalase discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing following process (see [0032]):
capturing, by an opposite lane side camera that is positioned on an opposite lane side of a vehicle, an image in at least a forward direction of the vehicle (FIGS. 2-3, camera 317 provides a view of zone 205 to the driver's side of the vehicle; see [0030], single camera with a wide angle lens may be used for each of these zones; see also [0047]); and
performing monitor control that causes a monitor (FIG. 3, displays 311, 313) to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle is in an opposite lane side turn ready state (FIG. 5 and [0045]-[0047], steps 501-507),
wherein, in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and an obstacle is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera (see [0047], [0052]).
Yellambalase fails to explicitly disclose wherein a crosswalk is detected.
However, Takenaga teaches displaying an image from a camera, in a case in which the vehicle starts to turn and a crosswalk is detected (FIG. 9; col. 2, lines 28-32; col. 10, lines 50-54; claim 1).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify Yellambalase using Takenaga’s teachings to include wherein, in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and a crosswalk is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera in order to recognize conditions around a host vehicle with a satisfactory response even under complex run environments, and greatly achieve an improvement in safety and a car automatic operation (Takenaga; col. 11, lines 3-7).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellambalase (US 20160193971) in view of Takenaga et al (US 6191704) in view of Yamaguchi (US 20190217780).
As to claim 2, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga fails to explicitly disclose wherein the monitor includes an opposite lane side monitor positioned on an opposite lane side of the vehicle, and wherein the monitor control unit causes the opposite lane side monitor to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle is in the opposite lane side turn ready state.
However, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the monitor includes an opposite lane side monitor positioned on an opposite lane side of the vehicle (FIG. 2, display 13a), and wherein the monitor control unit causes the opposite lane side monitor to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle is in the opposite lane side turn ready state (FIG. 5B and [0042]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga using Yamaguchi’s teachings to include an opposite lane side monitor positioned on an opposite lane side of the vehicle, and wherein the monitor control unit causes the opposite lane side monitor to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle is in the opposite lane side turn ready state in order to reduce a visual recognition error and an uncomfortable feeling at the time of visual recognition (Yamaguchi; [0024]).
As to claim 4, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga fails to explicitly disclose wherein the monitor includes a non-opposite lane side monitor positioned on a non-opposite lane side of the vehicle, and wherein the monitor control unit causes the non-opposite lane side monitor to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side-side camera when the vehicle is in the non-opposite lane side turn ready state.
However, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the monitor includes a non-opposite lane side monitor positioned on a non-opposite lane side of the vehicle (FIG. 2, display 13b), and wherein the monitor control unit causes the non-opposite lane side monitor to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side-side camera when the vehicle is in the non-opposite lane side turn ready state (see [0042]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga using Yamaguchi’s teachings to include a non-opposite lane side monitor positioned on a non-opposite lane side of the vehicle, and wherein the monitor control unit causes the non-opposite lane side monitor to display the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side-side camera when the vehicle is in the non-opposite lane side turn ready state in order to reduce a visual recognition error and an uncomfortable feeling at the time of visual recognition (Yamaguchi; [0024]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellambalase (US 20160193971) in view of Takenaga et al (US 6191704) in view of Goto et al (US 20220408062).
As to claim 8, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga fails to explicitly disclose wherein the monitor control unit divides a display screen of the monitor to simultaneously display a plurality of images.
However, Goto teaches wherein the monitor control unit divides a display screen of the monitor to simultaneously display a plurality of images (FIG. 5 and [0068]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga using Goto’s teachings to divide a display screen of the monitor to simultaneously display a plurality of images in order to allow drivers of vehicles to recognize the surrounding environment at the time of driving (Goto; [0199]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellambalase (US 20160193971) in view of Takenaga et al (US 6191704) in view of Deng et al (US 20240336197).
As to claim 10, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as a notification unit configured to provide a notification in a case in which a moving object is detected based on the image.
However, Deng teaches wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as a notification unit configured to provide a notification in a case in which a moving object is detected based on the image (see [0047]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga using Deng’s teachings to further configure the at least one processor or circuit to function as a notification unit configured to provide a notification in a case in which a moving object is detected based on the image in order to alert the driver (Deng; [0047]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellambalase (US 20160193971) in view of Takenaga et al (US 6191704) in view of Ikeda (US 20160373658).
As to claim 12, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga fails to explicitly disclose wherein the optical system forms a high-resolution region in a peripheral portion of the light receiving surface and forms a low-resolution region in a central portion of the light receiving surface.
However, Ikeda teaches wherein the optical system forms a high-resolution region in a peripheral portion of the light receiving surface and forms a low-resolution region in a central portion of the light receiving surface (FIG. 2 and [0019], [0021]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga using Ikeda’s teachings to make the optical system form a high-resolution region in a peripheral portion of the light receiving surface and form a low-resolution region in a central portion of the light receiving surface in order to allow for an easier trimming and removal of images of the high-resolution area (Ikeda; [0021]).
As to claim 13, the combination of Yellambalase, Takenaga and Ikeda further discloses wherein an image in the forward direction is an image corresponding to the high-resolution region (Yellambalase; FIGS. 2-3 and [0030]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellambalase (US 20160193971) in view of Takenaga et al (US 6191704) in view of Murata et al (US 20170314917).
As to claim 14, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga fails to explicitly disclose wherein, where f is a focal length of the optical system, θ is a half angle of view, y is an image height on an image plane, y (θ) is a projection characteristic representing a relation between the image height y and the half angle of view θ, and θ max is the maximum half angle of view of the optical system, then 0.2<2×f×tan (θ max/2)/y (θ max)<0.92 is satisfied.
However, Murata teaches wherein, where f is a focal length of the optical system, θ is a half angle of view, y is an image height on an image plane, y (θ) is a projection characteristic representing a relation between the image height y and the half angle of view θ, and θ max is the maximum half angle of view of the optical system (see Abstract and [0023], the relationship of a half view angle θ and an image height y based on the projection method, focal length f, maximum view angle θma, y(θ)=f*tanθ), then 1.5<(y(θs)/θs)/{(y(θmax)−y(θs))/(θmax−θs)}<3.0 is satisfied (see [0066]-[0067]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga using Murata’s teachings to include wherein, where f is a focal length of the optical system, θ is a half angle of view, y is an image height on an image plane, y (θ) is a projection characteristic representing a relation between the image height y and the half angle of view θ, and θ max is the maximum half angle of view of the optical system, then 1.5<(y(θs)/θs)/{(y(θmax)−y(θs))/(θmax−θs)}<3.0 is satisfied in order to capture images at a wide view angle where the object distance is long in an area where the view angle is small and the object distance is short in the peripheral areas, and to both widen an image capture view angle and secure an angular resolution across the entire image capture range (Murata; [0009], [0067]-[0068]).
The combination of Yellambalase, Takenaga and Murata fails to explicitly discloses 0.2<2×f×tan (θ max/2)/y (θ max)<0.92 is satisfied.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to satisfy 0.2<2×f×tan (θ max/2)/y (θ max)<0.92, since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (in this case 1.5<(y(θs)/θs)/{(y(θmax)−y(θs))/(θmax−θs)}<3.0 is satisfied, y(θ)=f*tanθ), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case satisfying 0.2<2×f×tan (θ max/2)/y (θ max)<0.92 involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., (a) In a turn ready state: displaying a part in the forward direction of the own vehicle; and (b) In-turning state determined by the presence of crosswalk in the forward direction: displaying a part in the lateral direction of the own vehicle of the image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues, in last paragraph on page 9, that the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga does not disclose displaying “the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle is in an opposite lane side turn ready state” and then “in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and a crosswalk is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera.” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Yellambalase discloses in [0045]-[0047], camera activation provides aid to the driver when making a turn and, more specifically, helps minimize the dangers associated with entering into cross traffic by providing the driver with additional views of the on-coming traffic. Initially the driver indicates that they intend to turn a corner (step 501) … the driver must activate the turn signal, i.e., either left turn signal 327 or right turn signal 329 (step 503) … then controller 301 automatically displays the camera information from the preselected cameras (step 507) … more preferably the camera data from side cameras 317/318 (i.e., views 205/207) as well as the data from front camera 315 (i.e., view 201) is displayed … FIG. 6 illustrates an embodiment in which two cameras are used, with camera 601 providing front and driver side views of zone 602, and camera 603 providing front and passenger side view of zone 604. It will be appreciated that by moving the camera locations forward from those shown in FIG. 2, and in particular forward of the driver's position within vehicle 605, an improved cross traffic view is provided to the driver. In [0030], Yellambalase discloses that a single camera with a wide angle lens may be used for each of these zones. Therefore, since the images captured by the wide angle side cameras 317/318 include at least the forward direction, Yellambalase discloses displaying “the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera when the vehicle is in an opposite lane side turn ready state.”
Furthermore, Yellambalase discloses in [0052], whenever an obstacle is detected (step 805), controller 301 then determines whether or not the obstacle is in the vehicle's pathway (step 807) … If controller 301 determines that the obstacle may be in the vehicle's pathway (step 811) then the camera feed that shows that obstacle is automatically displayed (step 813) … if the car is turning while moving forward than the appropriate camera feeds are automatically displayed (e.g., zones 201 and 205 if the car is moving forward while turning left; zones 201 and 207 if the car is moving forward while turning right; zones 203 and 205 if the car is moving backward while turning left; and zones 203 and 207 if the car is moving backward while turning right). Therefore, although Yellambalase does not explicitly disclose crosswalk detection, Yellambalase discloses obstacle detection and the camera feed that shows that obstacle is automatically displayed when the car is turning while moving forward (e.g., zones 205 or 207 which are lateral directions of the vehicle). Takenaga is used to teach displaying an image from a camera, in a case in which the vehicle starts to turn and a crosswalk is detected. Therefore, the combination of Yellambalase and Takenaga discloses “in a case in which the vehicle starts an opposite lane side turn and a crosswalk is detected from the image in at least the forward direction captured by the opposite lane side camera, the monitor control unit causes the monitor to display an image in a lateral direction of the vehicle captured by at least the opposite lane side camera.”
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 BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 5712727331. 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.
/BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482