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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to communications filed on 05/05/2025. Claims 1-10, 12-21 are pending.
Please note there are two prior art rejections of Claim 21. It is also noted that Claim 21 appears to separate the operating condition limitations. It is also noted that claims 15 and 16 are now rejected under prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2025 for have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejection of Claim 2 (and corresponding claims 4-9), the applicant argues that it is a presentation of the images on the display device approximates a view.
In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully notes that this is unclear and also does not have support in the specification. The examiner notes that presenting images….configured as a virtual side mirror is vague and unclear as how does one configure the presentation of images. It is unclear how presentation of images approximates a view and there is no corresponding description in the specification to describe this limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2025 for the prior art rejection are moot due to new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Claim 1, 10 and 18, the applicant argues that Lee and Spender doe does not teach the limitation a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera and configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the automotive vehicle. The applicant argues that the images are zoomed in and out and not the camera.
In response to the arguments, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on the processor configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the automotive vehicle. Spencer discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Figure 1, 110, 114, 106, Page 2, paragraph 0017) and configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Figure 5B, Page 4, paragraph 0029, lines 3-15, monitor various conditions including vehicle speed, traffic conditions, lines 29-35, zooming the input of cameras, Figure 5B, 570-575 , changing the display, Page 5, paragraph 0034-0036, Page 6-7, paragraph 0040, bottom of page 6 last 3 lines to end of paragraph 0040, first state and second state are low and high speed respectively and the input of rear camera is zoomed in for first state over second).
Spencer in paragraph 0029 discloses “the adjustment can include panning or zooming the input from one or more cameras for the display in the respective view area (570). For example, when a turn indicator is on, the input from the side-view camera corresponding to the side of the turn indicator can be zoomed in to increase the size of the vehicle in the blind spot to focus a driver's attention on the vehicle itself.” Spencer discloses in paragraph 0040 “The input feed from the at least one rear-view cameras can be zoomed in in the first state as compared with the second state.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 (and corresponding dependent claims 4-9) recites “wherein presentation of the images on the display device approximates a view of a side-view mirror of the automotive vehicle.” The specification does not describe approximating a view of a side-view mirror. Please review the specification and rewrite the limitations. No new matter can be added.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 (and corresponding dependent claims 4-9) recites “wherein presentation of the images on the display device approximates a view of a side-view mirror of the automotive vehicle” It is unclear if the presentation of the images or the display device approximates side view mirror. Please review the specification and clarify the limitations. No new matter can be added.
It is noted that the applicant indicated that the presentation of images….approximates side-view mirror. It is unclear how presentation of images approximates a view of side view mirror. Please review the specification and clarify the limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20140132770 and hereafter referred to as “Lee”) in view of Spencer et al (US 2018/0154831 and hereafter referred to as “Spencer”).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses an automotive vehicle, comprising:
a camera positioned to capture of images with a field of view of a vehicle side-view mirror (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033);
an additional camera positioned to capture images with an additional field of view of an opposite vehicle side-view mirror, wherein the additional field of view has a different angle from the field of view of the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033, Figure 3, 110, narrow view camera – different angle as it using the narrow viewing angle lens); and
a display device configured to present the images captured by the camera to present, to a driver of the automotive vehicle, the field of view of the vehicle side-view mirror (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display).
Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on the processor configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the automotive vehicle.
Spencer discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Figure 1, 110, 114, 106, Page 2, paragraph 0017) and configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Figure 5B, Page 4, paragraph 0029, lines 3-15, monitor various conditions including vehicle speed, traffic conditions, lines 29-35, zooming the input of cameras, Figure 5B, 570-575 , changing the display, Page 5, paragraph 0034-0036, Page 6-7, paragraph 0040, bottom of page 6 last 3 lines to end of paragraph 0040, first state and second state are low and high speed respectively and the input of rear camera is zoomed in for first state over second). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to have a broader field of view (Page 1, paragraph 0034) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Spencer.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee wherein presentation of the images on the display device approximates a view of a side-view mirror of the automotive vehicle (Figure 3, right display, Figure 4, Page 3, paragraph 0033-0036).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Lee discloses wherein the camera is mounted on the automotive vehicle at a side-view mirror location (Page 2, paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 2. Lee discloses the presentation of the images on the display device is operable as a replacement of a physical mirror, the physical mirror configured to reflect lights, to provide a side view to the driver of the automotive vehicle (paragraph 0101, 0117 – it is necessarily included that a physical mirror reflects light as the applicant stated in the remarks that the physical mirror is configured to reflect light).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. Spencer discloses wherein the display device includes a screen configured inside of the automotive vehicle (Figure 4C).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. Lee discloses presenting on a display device but does not explicitly disclose presenting on an area. Spencer discloses wherein the display device is configured to present the images on an area of the automotive vehicle (paragraph 0020). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to have a broader field of view (Page 1, paragraph 0034) as disclosed by Spencer.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 6. Spencer discloses further comprising: a windshield, wherein the area is configured on the windshield (paragraph 0020). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 8, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 6. Spencer discloses wherein the area is substantially transparent to the driver of the automotive vehicle (paragraph 0020). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 6. Spencer discloses wherein the display device is configured to present the images via projection (paragraph 0020). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a virtual side-view mirror having:
a camera configured at a side-mirror location of the vehicle (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033); and
a display device configured to present images captured by the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display) and
an additional virtual side mirror having a differently angled field of view from the virtual side mirror (Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033, Figure 3, 110, different angle as it using the narrow viewing angle lens).
Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on the processor configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the automotive vehicle.
Spencer discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Figure 1, 110, 114, 106, Page 2, paragraph 0017) and configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Figure 5B, Page 4, paragraph 0029, lines 3-15, monitor various conditions including vehicle speed, traffic conditions, lines 29-35, zooming the input of cameras, Figure 5B, 570-575 , changing the display, Page 5, paragraph 0034-0036, Page 6-7, paragraph 0040, bottom of page 6 last 3 lines to end of paragraph 0040, first state and second state are low and high speed respectively and the input of rear camera is zoomed in for first state over second). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to have a broader field of view (Page 1, paragraph 0034) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Spencer.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. Spencer discloses wherein the operating condition comprises a speed of the vehicle (Page 5, paragraph 0034, Page 6, paragraph 0040). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. Spencer discloses wherein the operating condition comprises presence of objects in vicinity of the vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0029, Page 5, paragraph 0034). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 14, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. Spencer discloses wherein the operating condition comprises absence of or presence of a nearby vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0027, 0029). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 17, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 10. Lee discloses further comprising: a processor further configured to adjust an angle of field of view of the images captured by the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0039, Page 3, paragraph 0052, 0056, Page 1, paragraph 0016).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed in a computing system configured on a vehicle, cause the vehicle to perform a method, comprising:
capturing, using a camera configured on the vehicle, images having a field of view of a vehicle side-view mirror (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033);
capturing, using an additional camera configured on the vehicle, additional images having a differently angled field of view of an additional vehicle side-view mirror, w from the field of view of the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033, Figure 3, 110, narrow view camera – different angle as it using the narrow viewing angle lens); and
presenting, on a display device, the images to a driver of the vehicle, the field of view of the vehicle side-view mirror (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display).
Lee discloses controlling the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on adjusting a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the automotive vehicle.
Spencer discloses adjusting a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Figure 5B, Page 4, paragraph 0029, lines 3-15, monitor various conditions including vehicle speed, traffic conditions, lines 29-35, zooming the input of cameras, Figure 5B, 570-575 , changing the display, Page 5, paragraph 0034-0036, Page 6-7, paragraph 0040, bottom of page 6 last 3 lines to end of paragraph 0040, first state and second state are low and high speed respectively and the input of rear camera is zoomed in for first state over second, Page 2, paragraph 0017, Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to have a broader field of view (Page 1, paragraph 0034) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Spencer.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 18. Lee discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the computing system, an operating condition of vehicle (Page 3, paragraph 0056); and adjusting, based on the operating conditions, an angle of the field of view camera (Page 6, paragraph 0056, 0052, Page 2, paragraph 0039, Page 1, paragraph 0016).
Claims 15-16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Spencer and Farb (US 2015/0228066).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 14. Spencer discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Figure 1, 110, 114, 106, Page 2, paragraph 0017) and configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Figure 5B, Page 4, paragraph 0029, lines 3-15, lines 29-35, zooming the input of cameras, 0030, vehicles that are present, Figure 5B, 570-575 , changing the display, Page 5, paragraph 0034-0036, Page 6-7, paragraph 0039, vehicles nearby/approaching, 0040, bottom of page 6 last 3 lines to end of paragraph 0040, f), wherein the operating condition comprises a presence of a nearby vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0027, 0029). Spencer does not teach a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period. Farb discloses a vehicle with a camera and a processor/system (Figure 1, Figure 2, 110, 130) and the operating condition comprises the presence of the nearby vehicle and a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period (Page 4, paragraph 0091, 0093, 0097). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Farb in order to provide information to the driver by determining if a collision is likely (Page 4, paragraph 0093) as disclosed by Farb.
Regarding Claim 16, Lee, Spencer and Farb disclose all the limitations of Claim Lee discloses a predetermined time period including within 4 seconds. See motivation above. Lee does not explicitly say it is within five to thirty seconds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include a predetermined time period within 4 seconds which approaches the claimed range of five to thirty seconds, since it has been held that where they approach the range so closely that there out to be a noticeable difference. In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937)
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of Americav.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. “The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.”). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) (“Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys.”); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., “not substantially less than 13%,” “not substantially below 17%,” and “between about 13[%] and 20%”); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of “less than 6 pounds per cubic feet” and the prior art range of “between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3” were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).
See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding Claim 21, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a virtual side-view mirror having:
a camera configured at a side-mirror location of the vehicle (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033); and
a display device configured to present images captured by the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display) and
Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle, wherein the operating condition comprises a presence of a nearby vehicle, and wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period
Spencer discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Figure 1, 110, 114, 106, Page 2, paragraph 0017) and configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Figure 5B, Page 4, paragraph 0029, lines 3-15, lines 29-35, zooming the input of cameras, 0030, vehicles that are present, Figure 5B, 570-575 , changing the display, Page 5, paragraph 0034-0036, Page 6-7, paragraph 0039, vehicles nearby/approaching, 0040, bottom of page 6 last 3 lines to end of paragraph 0040, f), wherein the operating condition comprises a presence of a nearby vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0027, 0029)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to have a broader field of view (Page 1, paragraph 0034) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Spencer.
The combination is silent on wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period.
Farb discloses a vehicle wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period (Page 4, paragraph 0091, 0093, 0097).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Farb in order to provide information to the driver by determining if a collision is likely (Page 4, paragraph 0093) as disclosed by Farb.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Spencer, as applied above to claim 19, further in view of Fursich et al (US 2016/0137126 and hereafter referred to as “Fursich”).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee and Spencer disclose all the limitations of Claim 19. Spencer discloses the zoom level and adjusting the field of view (paragraph 0034, see last 4 lines). The combination does not disclose the angle of the field of view is adjusted based on the zoom level. Fursich discloses wherein the angle of the field of view is adjusted based on the zoom level of the camera (Page 6, paragraph 0158, Page 5, paragraph 0137). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Fursich in order to provide help the driver view displayed images clearly (Page 1, paragraph 0009) as disclosed by Fursich.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Spencer and Frazier et al (US 11,124,114 and hereafter referred to as “Frazier”).
Regarding Claim 21, Lee discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a virtual side-view mirror having:
a camera configured at a side-mirror location of the vehicle (Figure 3, 120, wide view camera – camera using wide view angle lens, Page 2, paragraph 0032, 0033); and
a display device configured to present images captured by the camera (Page 2, paragraph 0047, Figure 9, right display) and
Lee discloses a processor coupled to the camera to control the camera (Figure 10, 130, 117, 110, 120, 125, 127) but is silent on configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle, wherein the operating condition comprises a presence of a nearby vehicle, and wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period
Spencer discloses further comprising: a processor coupled to the camera (Figure 1, 110, 114, 106, Page 2, paragraph 0017) and configured to adjust a zoom level of the camera based on an operating condition of the vehicle (Figure 5B, Page 4, paragraph 0029, lines 3-15, lines 29-35, zooming the input of cameras, 0030, vehicles that are present, Figure 5B, 570-575 , changing the display, Page 5, paragraph 0034-0036, Page 6-7, paragraph 0039, vehicles nearby/approaching, 0040, bottom of page 6 last 3 lines to end of paragraph 0040, f), wherein the operating condition comprises a presence of a nearby vehicle (Page 4, paragraph 0027, 0029)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee to include the missing limitations as taught by Spencer in order to have a broader field of view (Page 1, paragraph 0034) and situation awareness (Page 5, paragraph 0036) as disclosed by Spencer.
The combination is silent on wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period.
Frazier discloses wherein the processor is configured to make a determination that the nearby vehicle is to overtake the vehicle within a predetermined time period (Column 6, line 42-54, Figure 8, advancing or retreating for a period time Column 8, lines 29-52, Column 7, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Frazier in order to provide information to the driver if the vehicle is advancing or retreating for reasons such as merging (Column 6, lines 56-67, Column 7, lines 1-4) as disclosed by Frazier.
Furthermore, in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007), the Court found that if all the claimed elements are known in the prior art then one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
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
February 27, 2026