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
Response to Arguments
Regarding objections.
Applicant argues:
The Office Action objects to the title of the invention as being not descriptive, and requires a new title. Without conceding the merits of the objections, Applicant has amended the title. Withdrawal of the objections is respectfully requested.
Examiner replies that:
Withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 112.
Applicant argues:
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(d) as being 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.
Without conceding the merits of the rejections, Applicant has amended claims 5 and 15. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections in the next Action.
Examiner replies that:
Withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103.
Applicant argues:
For example, independent claim 1 as amended recites, in part:
in a second transmission state:
obtaining second image data instead of the first image data; and sending fourth image data to the display for displaying, wherein the fourth image data corresponds to the second image data[.]
Applicant respectfully submits that Hoshina is silent with respect to the recited features of amended claim 1, and has not been shown to disclose at least these features of the claim.
For the teaching of these features prior to the current amendments, the Office Action on page 4 offers Hoshina (citing para. [0048]). However, Applicant respectfully submits that Hoshina has not been shown to disclose at least the current claim language.
[…] Applicant respectfully submits that Hoshina merely refers to suspending the switching of the frame memories 251 and 252 when an error is detected in the image data that are written in each of the frame memories 251 and 252.. In contrast to the features of claim 1 as presently amended, Hoshina does not disclose, when an error is detected in the image data that are written in each of the frame memories 251 and 252, obtaining second image data instead of the image data and sending fourth image data to a display for displaving. Even less, Hoshina fails to teach or suggest that the fourth image data corresponds to the second image data.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that Hoshina has not been shown to disclose "in a second transmission state: obtaining second image data instead of the first image data; and sending fourth image data to the display for displaying," particularly where "wherein the fourth image data corresponds to the second image data" as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added).
Examiner replies that:
Applicant has amended the claims to change the scope since the previous action. The amendment(s) necessitate new ground(s) of rejection and are rejected in detail under the § 102/103 headings below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 19 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 10-14, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mishima U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20170339401.
Regarding claim 1:
(Currently Amended) An in-vehicle display control method, wherein the method comprises: (Mishima Abstract An image monitoring apparatus, includes: an abnormality detecting part configured to detect an abnormal output from an imaging device based on frame data input to a display driving device that displays the frame data output from the imaging device on a display device; and a signal output part configured to output an abnormality detection signal when the abnormal output is detected.).
in a first transmission state: obtaining first image data and sending third image data to a display for displaying, wherein the third image data corresponds to the first image data (Mishima [0031] The camera 2 is an imaging device for outputting the frame data F having captured image data. The frame data F conforms to, for example, an ITU-R BT. 656 standard, and is output from the camera 2 to the LCD driver 4 through the image monitoring apparatus 1.) were the first and third image correspond with no changes being indicated, and may be the same image data.
and in a second transmission state: (Mishima [0031] Further, the camera 2 performs an operation based on a control signal output from the abnormality control device 300 according to an input of the abnormality detection signal or an abnormality flag to be described below. For example, the camera 2 may stop imaging or turn off its power and enter an operation stop state.).
obtaining second image data instead of the first image data and sending fourth image data to the display for displaying, wherein the fourth image data corresponds to the second image data, wherein: (Mishima [0032] For example, the LCD driver 4 controls display of the LCD 3 according to an input of the abnormality detection signal and displays an indication that the camera 2 itself or an image captured by the camera 2 is abnormal, on the LCD 3.) were the second and fourth image correspond with no changes being indicated, and may be the same image data.
the second transmission state indicates that reception of the first image data is abnormal (Mishima [0031] Further, the camera 2 performs an operation based on a control signal output from the abnormality control device 300 according to an input of the abnormality detection signal or an abnormality flag to be described below. For example, the camera 2 may stop imaging or turn off its power and enter an operation stop state.).
and the first image data and the second image data indicate a vehicle status, (Mishima [0032] The LCD 3 is an example of a display device. The LCD driver 4 is an example of a display driving device that drives and controls the LCD 3 and displays the frame data F on the LCD 3. The speaker 5 is an example of a sound output device. The LCD driver 4 and the speaker 5 perform a notification based on an input of the abnormality detection signal. For example, the LCD driver 4 controls display of the LCD 3 according to an input of the abnormality detection signal and displays an indication that the camera 2 itself or an image captured by the camera 2 is abnormal, on the LCD 3.) where the first image is a camera image which is a status showing vehicle position/location in the environment and the second image is an indicator, giving a status of the vehicle camera.
Regarding claim 2:
(Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Mishima. Mishima further teaches wherein the first image data is obtained after being processed by an image processor (Mishima [0032] The LCD 3 is an example of a display device. The LCD driver 4 is an example of a display driving device that drives and controls the LCD 3 and displays the frame data F on the LCD 3.)(Mishima [0034] The microcomputer 102 is a control part that controls each component of the image monitoring apparatus 1 using the programs, control information, and the like stored in the memory 101. The microcomputer 102 includes an abnormality detecting part 10 and a signal output part 14.) since the image is processed by the microcomputer and lcd driver before being displayed.
Regarding claim 3:
(Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Mishima. Mishima further teaches wherein the second image data is vehicle status data from a vehicle bus or pre-stored image data corresponding to the vehicle status (Mishima [0032] For example, the LCD driver 4 controls display of the LCD 3 according to an input of the abnormality detection signal and displays an indication that the camera 2 itself or an image captured by the camera 2 is abnormal, on the LCD 3.) where the indicator data that is transferred across a vehicle bus.
Regarding claim 7:
(Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Mishima. Mishima further teaches the first image data indicates at least one of (Mishima [0054] The images PB, PR, and PL may also be displayed on a single display screen 30. FIG. 8 illustrates another display example of the images PB, PR, and PL based on the frame data F of each of the cameras 21 to 23 placed in the vehicle 200. As illustrated in FIG. 8, the LCD driver 4 displays the image PB of the central rear of the vehicle 200 at the center of the display screen 30, displays the image PR of the right rear side of the vehicle 200 on the right of the display screen 30, and displays the image PL of the left rear side of the vehicle 200 on the left of the display screen 30. Here, in FIG. 8, the LCD 3 on which the images PB, PR, and PL are displayed may be a display D used in a car navigation, and the like, or may be a display device different from the display D.) since it is showing the surrounding area, it is showing a state of the vehicle and environment.
Regarding claim 8:
(Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Mishima. Mishima further teaches wherein obtaining the second image data comprises: receiving vehicle status data and generating the second image data based on the vehicle status data or reading [[the]] pre-stored second image data based on the vehicle status data (Mishima [0032] For example, the LCD driver 4 controls display of the LCD 3 according to an input of the abnormality detection signal and displays an indication that the camera 2 itself or an image captured by the camera 2 is abnormal, on the LCD 3.) where the indicator data that is transferred across a vehicle bus and an image with the status is generated to be displayed.
Regarding claim 10:
(Original) The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Mishima. Mishima further teaches wherein the vehicle status comprises one or more of a vehicle-mounted device running status, a vehicle occupant status, a vehicle driving status, and a driving environment status (Mishima [0032] The LCD 3 is an example of a display device. The LCD driver 4 is an example of a display driving device that drives and controls the LCD 3 and displays the frame data F on the LCD 3. The speaker 5 is an example of a sound output device. The LCD driver 4 and the speaker 5 perform a notification based on an input of the abnormality detection signal. For example, the LCD driver 4 controls display of the LCD 3 according to an input of the abnormality detection signal and displays an indication that the camera 2 itself or an image captured by the camera 2 is abnormal, on the LCD 3.) where the first image is a camera image which is a status showing vehicle position/location in the environment (vehicle driving status and vehicle environment status) and the second image is an indicator, giving a status of the vehicle camera (vehicle-mounted device running status).
Regarding claim 11:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 12:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 2. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 13:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 3. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 17:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 7. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 18:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 8. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 20:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 10. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20170339401 in view of Chae U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20210209390.
Regarding claim 4:
(Previously Presented) The method according to claim 3, has all of its limitations taught by Mishima. Mishima does not teach the second image data being the same as the first image data. In a related field of endeavor, Chae teaches:
wherein the pre-stored image data is the same as the first image data generated by an image processor (Chae [0021] The host may then implement high-level error handling options (e.g., discard faulty frame and repeat good frame, and the like).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first image data as taught by Chae. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide error handling. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Chae with Mishima to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 14:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 4. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20170339401 in view of Nakada U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20180262697.
Regarding claim 5:
The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Mishima. Mishima does not teach adjusting the image. In a related field of endeavor, Nakada teaches:
wherein the third image data is different from the first image data. (Nakada [0051] The processing device 7 is a device that performs a quality changing process of decreasing the quality of the forward environment image I to equal to or lower than a predetermined standard. The quality of the forward environment image I is a quality that influences the visibility (the discrimination for a physical body or the like) of the image, and the index value for the quality includes the resolution of the image and the color number of the image (the number of colors that can be exhibited by each pixel). The predetermined standard includes a permissible value of the resolution, for example.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the image as taught by Nakada. The motivation for doing so would have been to meet country specific requirements (Nakada The permissible value of the resolution sometimes varies depending on country or region. For example, the permissible value of the resolution is sometimes determined based on a regulation about privacy.). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Nakada with Mishima to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 15:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 5. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20170339401 in view of Grewal U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20190041222.
Regarding claim 6:
(Previously Presented) The method according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Mishima. Mishima does not teach additional status information the display with the camera image. In a related field of endeavor, Grewal teaches:
wherein the vehicle status includes whether a seat belt is buckled, whether a warning light is turned on, (Grewal [0033] Still further the method may include the step of displaying, by the controller 38, operating parameters of the motor vehicle on the display screen 12. Those operating parameters may include but are not necessarily limited to the speed of the motor vehicle, the revolutions per minute of the engine of the motor vehicle, the mileage of the motor vehicle, the oil pressure of the motor vehicle, the fuel level of the motor vehicle, the oil temperature of the motor vehicle, the coolant temperature of the motor vehicle, the operating status of the HVAC system of the motor vehicle, the operating status of the transmission of the motor vehicle, the operating status of the turn indicators of the motor vehicle, one or more warning lights respecting operating conditions of the motor vehicle and the like. )(Grewal [0009] The motor vehicle display may further include a controller operatively connected to the display screen and configured to control the display of information on the display screen. Further, the motor vehicle display may include a first rearview side camera and a second rearview side camera connected to the controller. In addition, the controller may be configured to display a first image from the first rearview side camera on the side of the display screen adjacent the first A-pillar. Further, the controller may be configured to display a second image from the second rearview side camera on the side of the display screen adjacent the second A-pillar.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display additional status information on the camera image as taught by Grewal. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with additional information on the same display. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Grewal with Mishima to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 16:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 6. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Conclusion
For the prior art referenced and the prior art considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon, see PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (571) 270-0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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, seehttp://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights