Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/397,150

SURROUND VIEW MONITORING APPARATUS AND METHOD WITH FAULT TOLERANCE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 27, 2023
Examiner
HOSSAIN, FARZANA E
Art Unit
2482
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Kia Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
421 granted / 646 resolved
+7.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
669
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
§103
40.7%
+0.7% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 646 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Amendment This office action is in response to communications filed 12/23/2025. Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new limitations. Regarding Claim 9-14 and 16, the applicant has amended the claims to overcome the contingent limitations and prior art rejection. In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claim limitations are contingent limitations. Therefore, any limitations which refers in response to determining…are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II. T The contingency is determining whether at least one of the a plurality of SVM cameras has failed and the limitations further recite in response to specific limitations. Therefore, if the determination is none of a plurality cameras fail, the remaining in response to limitations are not required. Dabral discloses wherein generating the surround view image comprises (v) in response to determining that none of the plurality of SVM cameras has failed, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by all of the plurality of SVM cameras (Page, 1, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 2, paragraph 0021, Page 3, paragraph 0027). Each of the in response to limitations are contingent limitations. It is noted that claims 11-14 and 16 are contingent limitations which are not required. The Office suggests rewriting the limitations of the method claim to remove the contingent limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 9-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dabral et al (US 2023/0171397 and hereafter referred to as “Dabral”). Dabral recites “U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/642,510, entitled “Method, Apparatus and System for Processing a Display From a Surround View Camera Solution,” filed Mar. 9, 2015, which is incorporated by reference herein” in paragraph 0018 which is published as Zhang et al (US 2015/0254825 and hereafter referred to as “Zhang”). Note for claim 9, there are contingent limitations. Regarding Claim 9, Dabral discloses a method performed by a surround view monitoring (SVM) apparatus with fault tolerance, the method comprising: determining whether at least one of a plurality of SVM cameras has failed (Page 3, paragraph 0027), wherein the plurality of SVM cameras comprises a front SVM camera for capturing a front of a vehicle, a rear SVM camera for capturing a rear of the vehicle, a left SVM camera for capturing a left of the vehicle, and a right SVM camera for capturing a right of the vehicle (Figure 1A, Page 1, paragraph 0017); generating a surround view image based on images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras (Page 2, paragraph 0020, 0024, Page 5, paragraph 0041, Page 3, paragraph 0027), displaying the generated surround view image on an SVM display (Page 1, paragraph 0018, Page 2, paragraph 0027, Figure 1B, See also Zhang: Figure 6, Figure 9), wherein generating the surround view image comprises in response to determining that the front SVM camera has failed, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by a front camera included in a built-in cam together with the images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras excluding the front SVM camera, (ii) in response to determining that the rear SVM camera has failed, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by a rear camera included in the built-in cam together with images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras excluding the rear SVM camera, (iii) in response to determining that at least one of the left SVM camera or the right SVM camera has failed while the front SVM camera and the rear SVM camera are in normal operation, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras excluding the failed SVM camera, (iv) in response to determining that both the front SVM camera and the rear SVM camera have failed, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by both the front camera and the rear camera included in the built-in cam together with images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras excluding the front SVM camera and the rear SVM camera, and (v) in response to determining that none of the plurality of SVM cameras has failed, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by all of the plurality of SVM cameras (Page, 1, paragraph 0017-0018, Page 2, paragraph 0021, Page 3, paragraph 0027), and wherein the method further comprises, in response to determining that all of the plurality of SVM cameras have failed, resetting the plurality of SVM cameras. Note for claim 9, the limitation “wherein generating the surround view image comprises (i) in response to determining that the front SVM camera has failed, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by a front camera included in a built-in cam together with the images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras excluding the front SVM camera, (ii) in response to determining that the rear SVM camera has failed, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by a rear camera included in the built-in cam together with images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras excluding the rear SVM camera, (iii) in response to determining that at least one of the left SVM camera or the right SVM camera has failed while the front SVM camera and the rear SVM camera are in normal operation, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras excluding the failed SVM camera, (iv) in response to determining that both the front SVM camera and the rear SVM camera have failed, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by both the front camera and the rear camera included in the built-in cam together with images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras excluding the front SVM camera and the rear SVM camera, and (v) in response to determining that none of the plurality of SVM cameras has failed, generating the surround view image by utilizing images captured by all of the plurality of SVM cameras” are contingent limitations and are not required in method claims. Therefore, any limitations which refers to in response to determining (i.e. front, rear, left, right, none, all) are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Claim 9 is met with the determination of one of the contingent limitations. Regarding Claim 10, Dabral discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Dabral discloses the SVM controller is configured to set a target area for each of the images captured by the plurality of SVM cameras, wherein the SVM controller is further configured to perform distortion correction and perspective transform on the set target area and then match each of the target areas to generate the surround view image (paragraph 0019, see also Zhang paragraphs 0020-0025, 0027). Regarding Claims 11-13 and 16, Dabral discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and 9. The limitations are not required as they fall under the contingent limitations. See MPEP 2111.04, II. See paragraph above. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dabral in view of Lee et al (US 2022/0118908 and hereafter referred to as “Lee”). Regarding Claim 14, Dabral discloses all the limitations of claims 9. The combination is silent on the notification. Lee discloses visually or audibly provide a notification to a driver of the vehicle that the SVM is switching to a fault tolerant mode (paragraph 0008, 0025, 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as disclosed by Lee in order to o prevent accidents (paragraph 0003-0004) as disclosed by Lee. The limitations are not required as they fall under the contingent limitations. See MPEP 2111.04, II. See paragraph above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-6, 8 are allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. 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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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. /FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482 January 13, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 27, 2023
Application Filed
May 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 07, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 19, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593097
METHOD FOR DECODING A DATA STREAM, ASSOCIATED DEVICE AND ASSOCIATED DATA STREAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584730
OIL RIG DRILL PIPE AND TUBING TALLY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568233
SCALABLE ENCODING AND DECODING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12549800
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING CONTENT TO A MEDIA PLAYING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12545188
CAMERA ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 646 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month