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 .
Note to the Applicant
Claims 1-12 recite “second information.” While second information is understood to be information, it is noted that there is no first information. The Office is not providing a claim objection or a clarity rejection. The Office suggests the applicant review the language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “A movable apparatus….a movable apparatus…the movable apparatus…” It is unclear if there are more than one apparatus.
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 1-3, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Iino et al (US 2022/0111793 and hereafter referred to as “Iino”). in view of Seki et al (US 2019/0304811 and hereafter referred to as “Seki”) and Park et al (US 2016/0217332 and hereafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding Claim 1, Iino discloses an image processing system comprising:
at least one processor or circuit (Figure 1, 70, 73, Page 3, paragraph 0041-0042) configured to function as:
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire video image data of a front video image captured in front of a movable apparatus and a rear video image captured in rear of the movable apparatus (Figure 1, 70, 73, Figure 1, 61-64); and
a display unit configured to display a video image of the movable apparatus (Page 3, paragraph 0038-0040, Figure 1, 53);
wherein the display unit displays the rear video image in a rear display region and displays second information in a second display region (Page 4, paragraph 0050, second information is the bird’s eye image), and
in a case in which the front video image is not displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is inverted and displayed in the rear display region (Page 6, paragraph 0071, Figure 3).
Iino discloses a display unit configured to display a video image but is silent that the display is on a right side or a left side of the movable apparatus and wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image.
Seki discloses a display unit configured to display a video image on a right side or a left side of the movable apparatus (Figure 6, 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify Iino to include the missing limitation as taught by Seki in order to make it easier for the driver to view the images when it is directly in front of the driver.
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image.
Park discloses acquiring an image of a front of the vehicle and image of the rear of the vehicle (Page 2, paragraph 0048), wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image (Figure 6, Page 3-4, paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Park in order to provide other configurations of images to the driver (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Park.
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, Iino, Seki and Park disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Iino discloses wherein the rear display region and the second display region of the display unit are arranged side by side vertically or horizontally (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Iino, Seki and Park disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Iino discloses wherein the rear display region and the second display region of the display unit are arranged in a manner such that the sides having a correlation between the image are adjacent to each other during display of the front video image in the second display region (Figure 3 – the correlation of the images of the front to the rear (left and/or right) sides). Park discloses wherein the rear display region and the second display region of the display unit are arranged in a manner such that the sides having a correlation between the front video image and the rear video image are adjacent to each other during display of the front video image in the second display region (Figure 6 – the correlation of the images of the front to the rear (left and/or right) sides). Same motivation as above.
Regarding claim 10, Iino discloses a movable apparatus comprising:
at least one processor or circuit (Figure 1, 70, 73, Page 3, paragraph 0041-0042) configured to function as:
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire video image data of a front video image captured in front of a movable apparatus and a rear video image captured in rear of the movable apparatus (Figure 1, 70, 73, Figure 1, 61-64); and
a display unit configured to display a video image of the movable apparatus (Page 3, paragraph 0038-0040, Figure 1, 53);
wherein the display unit displays the rear video image in a rear display region and displays second information in a second display region (Page 4, paragraph 0050, second information is the bird’s eye image), and
in a case in which the front video image is not displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is inverted and displayed in the rear display region (Page 6, paragraph 0071 Figure 3).
Iino discloses a display unit configured to display a video image but is silent that the display is on a right side or a left side of the movable apparatus and wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image.
Seki discloses a display unit configured to display a video image on a right side or a left side of the movable apparatus (Figure 6, 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify Iino to include the missing limitation as taught by Seki in order to make it easier for the driver to view the images when it is directly in front of the driver.
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image.
Park discloses acquiring an image of a front of the vehicle and image of the rear of the vehicle (Page 2, paragraph 0048), wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image (Figure 6, Page 3-4, paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Park in order to provide other configurations of images to the driver (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Park.
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, Iino discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing the following processes:
acquiring video image data of a front video image captured in front of a movable apparatus and a rear video image captured in rear of the movable apparatus (Figure 1, 61-64, 70, 73, 86, Page 3, paragraph 0039-0041); and
displaying a video image on the movable apparatus (Figure 1, 53, Page 3, paragraph 0038-0041);
wherein the displaying includes displaying the rear video image in a rear display region and displaying second information in a second display region (Page 4, paragraph 0050, second information is the bird’s eye image), and
wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image, and, in a case in which the front video image is not displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is inverted and displayed in the rear display region (Page 6, paragraph 0071 Figure 3 ).
Iino discloses displaying a video image but is silent that the display is on a right side or a left side of the movable apparatus.
Seki discloses display a video image on a right side or a left side of the movable apparatus (Figure 6, 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify Iino to include the missing limitation as taught by Seki in order to make it easier for the driver to view the images when it is directly in front of the driver.
The combination does not disclose wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image
Park discloses acquiring an image of a front of the vehicle and image of the rear of the vehicle (Page 2, paragraph 0048), wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image (Figure 6, Page 3-4, paragraph 0073). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Park in order to provide other configurations of images to the driver (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Park.
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.
Claims 4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iino in view of Seki and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugawara et al (US 2022/0086400 and hereafter referred to as “Sugawara”).
Regarding Claim 4, Iino, Seki and Park disclose all the limitations of Claim 1. Iino discloses wherein the image acquisition unit acquires the video image data from an image capture unit by an optical system capable of capturing an image of a side surface of a movable apparatus (Figure 1, 62-63). Sugawara discloses wherein the image acquisition unit (Figure 3, 3) acquires the video image data from an image capture unit that captures a wide-angle video image by an optical system capable of capturing an image from a front to a rear of a side surface of a movable apparatus (Figure 1, Figure 12A, Page 7, paragraph 0073, Figure 10B, Page 5, paragraph 0062) and wherein the front video image and the rear video image are cut out from the video image data (Figure 1, Figure 12A, Page 7, paragraph 0073, Figure 10B, Page 5, paragraph 0062). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Sugawara in order to prevent any blind areas (Page 1, paragraph 0005) as disclosed by Sugawara.
Regarding Claim 7, Iino, Seki and Park and Sugawara disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. Iino discloses wherein, in a case in which the rear display region and the second display region of the display unit are arranged horizontally, an optical axis of the optical system is arranged in a horizontal direction (Figure 3). Park discloses wherein, in a case in which the rear display region and the second display region of the display unit are arranged horizontally, an optical axis of the optical system is arranged in a horizontal direction (Figure 6). Same motivation as above.
Regarding Claim 8, Iino, Seki and Park and Sugawara disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. Iino discloses wherein, in a case in which the rear display region and the second display region of the display unit are arranged horizontally, an optical axis of the optical system is arranged in a horizontal direction (Figure 3). Park discloses wherein, in a case in which the rear display region and the second display region of the display unit are arranged horizontally, an optical axis of the optical system is arranged in a horizontal direction (Figure 6). Same motivation as above. The combination does not teach vertically. Official notice is taken that it is well known in the art that the display of windows can be modified as the driver can choose how to display the windows for their benefit which would meet wherein, in a case in which the rear display region and the second display region of the display unit are arranged vertically, an optical axis of the optical system is arranged in a vertical direction.
Regarding Claim 9, Iino, Seki and Park and Sugawara disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. Sugawara discloses wherein, in a case in which the front video image is cut out from the video image data, the video image acquisition unit cuts out the front video image so as to include an end portion on the front side of the movable apparatus, and in a case in which the rear video image is cut out from the video image data, the image acquisition unit cuts out the rear video image so as to include an end portion on the rear side of the movable apparatus (Figure 1, Figure 12A, Page 7, paragraph 0073, Figure 10B, Page 5, paragraph 0006). Same motivation as above.
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iino in view of Seki and Park as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Hoshino et al (US 2024/0114253 and hereafter referred to as “Hoshino”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 5, Iino, Seki and Park disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. The combination is silent on the limitation. Hoshino discloses wherein the optical system has an optical characteristic in which a resolution of a peripheral portion of an angle of view is relatively higher than that of a central portion of the angle of view (paragraph 0024-0025, 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Hoshino in order to check for safety (Page 1, paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Hoshino.
Regarding Claim 6, Iino, Seki and Park and Hoshino disclose all the limitations of Claim 5. Hoshino discloses wherein, when f is a focus 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 θmax is a maximum half angle of view of the optical system, 0.1 <2 × f × tan (θmax / 2) / y (θmax) < 1.2 is satisfied (Page 2, paragraph 0029-0032). Same motivation as above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to the combination to include that the range is in between .1 and 1.2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iino in view of Seki and Park as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ikari (US 2024/0015269 and hereafter referred to as “Ikari”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 5, Iino, Seki and Park disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. The combination is silent on the limitation. Ikari discloses wherein the optical system has an optical characteristic in which a resolution of a peripheral portion of an angle of view is relatively higher than that of a central portion of the angle of view (paragraph 0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitation as taught by Ikari in order to improve visibility (Page 1, paragraph 0002-0004) as disclosed by Ikari.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iino in view of Seki and Park as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2024/0357247).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 5, Iino, Seki and Park disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. The combination is silent on the limitation. Kobayashi discloses wherein the optical system has an optical characteristic in which a resolution of a peripheral portion of an angle of view is relatively higher than that of a central portion of the angle of view(Page 3, paragraph 0055, 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Kobayashi in order to determine where a relative obstruction is (Page 6, paragraph 0106) and for improving image quality (Page 4, paragraph 0075) as disclosed by Kobayashi.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iino in view of Seki and Park as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2024/0114248).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding Claim 5, Iino, Seki and Park disclose all the limitations of Claim 4. The combination is silent on the limitation. Hoshino discloses wherein the optical system has an optical characteristic in which a resolution of a peripheral portion of an angle of view is relatively higher than that of a central portion of the angle of view (Page 4, paragraph 0064). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination to include the missing limitations as taught by Takahashi in order to image objects that are in different directions (Page 1, paragraph 0006) as disclosed by Takahashi.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Iino in view of Seki.
Regarding Claim 11, Iino discloses an image processing method comprising:
acquiring video image data of a front video image captured in front of a movable apparatus and a rear video image captured in rear of the movable apparatus (Figure 1, 61-64, 70, 73, 86, Page 3, paragraph 0039-0041); and
displaying a video image on the movable apparatus (Figure 1, 53, Page 3, paragraph 0038-0040);
wherein the displaying includes displaying the rear video image in a rear display region and displaying second information in a second display region (Page 4, paragraph 0050, second information is the bird’s eye image), and
wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image, and, in a case in which the front video image is not displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is inverted and displayed in the rear display region (Page 6, paragraph 0071 Figure 3 ).
Iino discloses displaying a video image but is silent that the display is on a right side or a left side of the movable apparatus.
Seki discloses display a video image on a right side or a left side of the movable apparatus (Figure 6, 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before defective filing date of invention to modify Iino to include the missing limitation as taught by Seki in order to make it easier for the driver to view the images when it is directly in front of the driver.
Note that the limitation “wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image, and, in a case in which the front video image is not displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is inverted and displayed in the rear display region” are contingent limitations and are not required in method claims. Therefore, any limitations which refers to “wherein, in a case in which the front video image is displayed in the second display region, the rear video image is displayed in the rear display region without inverting the rear video image, are not required to be met. See MPEP 2111.04, II.
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
September 19, 2025