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 and Argument
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to pending claims 1-3, 5-12, 14, 16, 18-24 filed on July 14, 2025 have been fully considered. Examiners response to the applicant’s argument follows below.
Abstract
In view of the amendment of the abstract of the claimed invention, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Drawings
In view of the amendment of the specification to remove the reference characters 114A-114D, the objection to the drawing is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Kunz in view of Yamaguchi fail to teach the feature of “wherein the display assembly includes a mounting assembly that is coupled and positioned between the display and the wall, wherein the mounting assembly is configured to allow a user to alter a position of the display,” because the combination of the prior arts “would render the references inoperable for their intended purpose”.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument with respect to the combination the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Kunz discloses (See Figs. 34-36, col. 11, line 51 to col. 12, line 34) a display mount 600 which can be mounted to a wall of the vehicle supporting the display 502 between a stowed or retracted position when actuated either manually or by powered drive unit.
Thus, Kunz teaches the limitation “wherein the display assembly includes a mounting assembly that is coupled and positioned between the display and the wall, wherein the mounting assembly is configured to allow a user to alter a position of the display,” as recited in claim 1.
Kunz further teaches the limitation “a body housing an interior living space that is separated from an exterior space by a wall, the wall including an interior-facing surface and an exterior-facing surface” (Kunz: See Figs. 1-3, illustrating exterior and interior view of the recreational vehicle including exterior and interior walls); and “a digital window system including: a display assembly including a display and mounted to the interior-facing surface” (Kunz: Figs.28- 29, 34-36, col. 11, line 51 to col. 12, line 34: a display 502).
Moreover, Yamaguchi discloses a camera mounted on the exterior of the vehicle and a display mounted on a vehicle facing inside of the vehicle which serve as a virtual window, for providing a real time viewing of the surrounding of the vehicle. See Figs. 1-4, ¶¶0002, 0020-0024, 0026.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunz’s recreational vehicle by incorporating the teaching of Yamaguchi, for providing a real time viewing mechanism of the surrounding of the vehicle.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 14, 16, 18 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz (US 7408596 B2) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20120212613 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kunz discloses a recreational vehicle comprising: a body housing an interior living space that is separated from an exterior space by a wall, the wall including an interior-facing surface and an exterior-facing surface (See Figs. 1-3, illustrating exterior and interior view of the recreational vehicle including exterior and interior walls); and a digital window system including: a display assembly including a display and mounted to the interior-facing surface (Figs. 28- 29, 34-36, col. 11, line 51 to col. 12, line 34: a display 502); wherein the display assembly includes a mounting assembly that is coupled and positioned between the display and the wall, wherein the mounting assembly is configured to allow a user to alter a position of the display (Figs. 34-36, col. 11, line 51 to col. 12, line 34: a display mount 600 which can be mounted to a wall of the vehicle supporting the display 502 between a stowed or retracted position when actuated either manually or by powered drive unit).
Kunz does not disclose a camera comprising an optical image sensor and communicatively coupled to the display and mounted to the exterior-facing surface.
However, Yamaguchi discloses a digital window system including a camera comprising an optical image sensor and communicatively coupled to the display and mounted to the exterior-facing surface (Figs. 1-7, a vehicle virtual window system. ¶0023: a camera assembly 32 positioned outside of the vehicle connected electrically to the display module 16, 18, 21, 23, 29).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunz’s recreational vehicle by incorporating the teaching of Yamaguchi, for providing a real time viewing mechanism of the surrounding of the vehicle (Yamaguchi: ¶0002, 0026)
Regarding claim 2, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the camera is mounted within an envelope defined by the display (Figs. 1-5, 7 ¶0025: a cylindrical shaped camera assembly including a housing 36 mounted on the opposite side of the display 6, 18, 21, 23, 29). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Yamaguchi discloses a cylindrical shaped camera assembly including a housing 36 mounted on the opposite side of the display 6, 18, 21, 23, 29 (Figs. 1-5, 7 ¶0025), however is silent regarding whether the camera(s) mounted within a 6 inch radius of a center of the display.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamaguchi and arrive at the claimed invention as recited in claim 3, 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.
Regarding claim 5, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Kunz further discloses wherein the digital window system is arranged and configured such that the display displays a digital window (display 502). Moreover, Yamaguchi discloses display modules 16, 18, 21 and 23 (¶0020-0021).
Regarding claim 6, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the digital window is configured to display a live view of the exterior space (¶0026: real time viewing of the surrounding environment). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 7, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 6. As noted above, Yamaguchi disclose a camera and display module for a vehicle to provide real time viewing of the surrounding environment. The module may be used to replace an existing conventional window. ¶0026. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, in Yamaguchi the real time viewing of the surrounding environment of the vehicle correspond to a conventional window view of the surrounding environment. Thus, Yamaguchi teaches wherein the live view has a boundary that is approximately the same dimension as an outer boundary of the display (Figs. 1-5, ¶0026). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 8, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the live view is an undistorted view of images generated by the camera (¶0026: real time viewing of the surrounding environment). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 9, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the camera and the display are communicatively coupled via a wires (¶0023: the camera assembly 32 are connected electrically to the display monitor 29). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 10, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein a portion of the wall to which the display assembly is coupled to does not include any window (Fig. 1: display modules 6, 18, 21 and 23, ¶0026: the display modules may replace an existing conventional window). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 11, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Kunz further discloses a first seat positioned immediately below the display assembly (See Figs. 3, 28, 29: illustrating multiple seats).
Regarding claim 12, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 12. Kunz further discloses a second seat positioned immediately across from the first seat on an opposite side of the interior living space (Figs. 3, 28, 29: illustrating multiple seats).
Regarding claim 14, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the recreational vehicle does not include a cabinet immediately below the display assembly (Note that Yamaguchi does not require a cabinet immediately below the display assembly. See Figs. 1, 3). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 16, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Kunz further discloses wherein the wall is part of a slide out (Figs. 1-3, col. 4, lines 21-31: slide-out 22, 24, 26).
Regarding claim 18, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 9. Yamaguchi at ¶0023 discloses “the camera assembly 32 are connected electrically to the display monitor 29.” Thus, Yamaguchi renders obvious the limitation “an opening sized to allow the wires to pass through the wall,” as the camera and the display monitor require electrical connection for signal transmission and power supply. See Yamaguchi ¶0021-0023. While the feature of “the wall further comprises an opening sized to allow the wires to pass through the wall” not expressly disclosed in Yamaguchi, it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, providing an opening or feed-through for wires is a standard predictable solution for routing electrical wiring. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunz in view of Yamaguchi to arrive at the claimed invention of “the wall further comprises an opening sized to allow the wires to pass through the wall”, in order electrically connect the display-mounted to the interior-facing surface of the vehicle and the camera- mounted to the exterior-facing surface of the vehicle, as this is a standard practice for vehicle electrical devices installation.
Regarding claim 22, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Yamaguchi further discloses wherein the camera is directly mounted to the exterior-facing surface of the wall (See Fig. 1, ¶0020, 0023: the camera assembly 32 mounted on the exterior of the vehicle 12). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 23, Kunz discloses a recreational vehicle comprising: a body housing an interior living space housing a first seat, wherein the interior living space is separated from an exterior space by a wall, the wall including an interior-facing surface and an exterior-facing surface (See Figs. 1-3, illustrating exterior and interior view of the recreational vehicle including exterior and interior walls); and a digital window system including: a display assembly including a display and mounted to the interior-facing surface (Figs. 28- 29, 34-36, col. 11, line 51 to col. 12, line 34: a display 502), wherein the display assembly includes a mounting assembly that is positioned between the display and the wall (Figs. 34-36, col. 11, line 51 to col. 12, line 34: a display mount 600), wherein the first seat is positioned immediately below the display assembly (See Figs. 3, 29, illustrating a seat and the display 502).
Kunz does not disclose a camera comprising an optical image sensor and communicatively coupled to the display and mounted to the exterior-facing surface, wherein the recreational vehicle does not include a cabinet positioned immediately below the display assembly.
However, Yamaguchi teaches a digital window system including a camera comprising an optical image sensor and communicatively coupled to the display and mounted to the exterior-facing surface Figs. 1-7, a vehicle virtual window system. ¶0023: a camera assembly 32 positioned outside of the vehicle connected electrically to the display module 16, 18, 21, 23, 29), wherein the recreational vehicle does not include a cabinet positioned immediately below the display assembly (Note that Yamaguchi does not require a cabinet immediately below the display assembly).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunz’s recreational vehicle by incorporating the teaching of Yamaguchi for providing a real time viewing mechanism of the surrounding of the vehicle (Yamaguchi: ¶0002, 0026), and thereby eliminating the need for a dedicated cabinet (See Figs. 27-28, cabinet 504) for mounting the display.
Regarding claim 24, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 23. Kunz further teaches a second seat positioned immediately across from the first seat on an opposite side of the interior living space than the first seat (See Figs. 3, 28-29 illustrating multiple seats).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz (US 7408596 B2) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 20120212613 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Plaster (US 20100194885 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi discloses the recreational vehicle of claim 1. Yamaguchi at ¶0021 discloses “ the video signals may also be transmitted wirelessly outside the vehicle to a remote location”. Yamaguchi therefore teaches wireless transmission capability in the system, however is silent regarding “wherein the display and the camera are communicatively coupled via wireless communication.”
Plaster teaches the limitation “wherein the display and the camera are communicatively coupled via wireless communication.” (See Figs. 1-6, ¶0028, 0047-0048, 0061, 0064: exterior camera modules 12A/interior camera module 12B transmitting a video stream via wires, fiber optics, wirelessly which may be displayed in real time on a display system 37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunz in view of Yamaguchi by incorporating the teaching of Plater as noted above, in order to eliminate wiring through the vehicle wall opening and to simplify installation process by taking the advantage of wireless communication.
Regarding claim 20, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi do not explicitly disclose wherein the camera is communicatively coupled to a motion sensor.
However, Plaster teaches wherein the camera is communicatively coupled to a motion sensor (Figs. 1-3, 5, 6, ¶0064: The proximity sensors 42 are used to monitor a perimeter around the RV 50. The proximity sensors 42 may be a photoelectric beam, motion sensors, infrared sensors, and the like. When the RV 50 is turned off, the proximity sensors 42 will activate. If a person comes within a predetermined distance of the RV 50, the proximity sensor 42 will send a signal either via a wired or wireless means to the processor 32A to active the camera module 12 closest to the proximity sensor 42 that was triggered).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kunz in view of Yamaguchi by incorporating the teaching of Plaster as noted above, for providing security against thief and vandalism to the vehicle (Plaster: ¶0002).
Regarding claim 21, Kunz in view of Yamaguchi and Plaster teach the recreational vehicle of claim 20. Plaster further teaches wherein the motion sensor is configured to transmit a signal to automatically activate the camera in response to detected motion (Figs. 1-3, 5, 6, ¶0064: The proximity sensors 42 are used to monitor a perimeter around the RV 50. The proximity sensors 42 may be a photoelectric beam, motion sensors, infrared sensors, and the like. When the RV 50 is turned off, the proximity sensors 42 will activate. If a person comes within a predetermined distance of the RV 50, the proximity sensor 42 will send a signal either via a wired or wireless means to the processor 32A to active the camera module 12 closest to the proximity sensor 42 that was triggered). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 20 applies here.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488