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 1-20 filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered. Examiners response to the applicant’s argument follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendment of the dependent claims 8 and 9, the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) of the claims is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that,
(1) “ Incorporating Weaver's multi-axis adjustable casino-ceiling mount into Ohshima's fixed-geometry vehicle camera system would contradict Ohshima's express teachings and defeat its purpose.” (2) “The proposed modification would also change the basic principle of operation of Ohshima's system” (3) “the combination of Ohshima and Weaver improperly attempts to combine references from non-analogous arts.” (4) “The proposed combination…lacks motivation.” Remarks, pp. 5-10.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments (1)-(3) summarized above regarding the combination of Ohshima and Weaver arts, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The current application relates to a vehicle camera monitor system having a camera mounted to the wing with a bracket assembly. The current application identifies an issue related to a different camera positioning requirement between different vehicles as well as a camera field of view change due to external factors. To address the issue, the current application discloses a bracket assembly that may include first, second, and third brackets configured for adjustment of the camera with respect to first, second, and third dimensions. Various fasteners (bolts or screws) may be loosened before adjustment and tightened after adjustment to secure the bracket assembly in a desired position. Current application: Abstract,¶0001-0002, 0066.
Ohshima discloses a vehicle mounted camera system with the imaging lens mounted to a side mirror of the vehicle for capturing images around a vehicle including, the arears near the tire and a surrounding in the height direction of the vehicle, to assist the driver in safe driving. The imaging lens is mounted at an angle relative to a direction perpendicular to the ground directly below the camera unit. The angle may be set within a predetermined range. Abstract, ¶0010-0013, 0061.
Ohshima identifies a problem associated with compatibility (suiting different vehicle models) and a manufacturing cost associated designing a camera of different vehicle modes, and provides a solution by changing the amount of a protrusion of the imaging lens of the camera unit. ¶0068-0069. It should be noted that Oshima identifies a similar particular problem (compatibility issue) with which the inventor was concerned. However, the approach to solve the problem in the current application differs from Oshima in that it requires “the bracket assembly comprises first, second, and third brackets configured for adjustment of the camera with respect to first, second, and third dimensions.”
Weaver discloses a multi-axes camera mounting assembly for mounting for supporting the camera at a fixed position. The mounting assembly including a first bracket, a second bracket, and a third bracket. Weaver further discloses in order to adjust the camera to a desired position, fasteners/nuts are loosened and tightened after adjustment of the camera. Abstract, col. 1, lines 6-8; col. 5, lines 23-33; col. 5, line 57 to col. 6, line 14.
Thus, Weaver teaches the limitation “the bracket assembly comprises first, second, and third brackets configured for adjustment of the camera with respect to first, second, and third dimensions.”
In response to applicant’s argument (4) that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine 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, as stated above Weaver discloses a multi-axes camera mounting assembly for mounting for supporting the camera at a fixed position. The mounting assembly including a first bracket, a second bracket, and a third bracket. Weaver further discloses in order to adjust the camera to a desired position, fasteners/nuts are loosened and tightened after adjustment of the camera. Abstract, col. 1, lines 6-8; col. 5, lines 23-33, col. 5, line 57 to col. 6, line 14. Weaver further discloses that such configuration of the multi-axes camera mounting assembly has an advantage of being easily adjusted to the desired fixed position. Weaver col. 2, lines 8-16.
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 Ohshima’s vehicle mounted camera system by incorporating a multi-axes camera mounting assembly which is configurable to be adjusted to a desired fixed position, as taught by Weaver, in order to easily orient the camera to the desired fixed position (col. 2, lines 8-16) , in view of variations depending on different vehicle modes.
Accordingly, the rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
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) 1-7, 11, 12 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohshima et al. (US 20130033604 A1) in view of Weaver (US 7440027 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Ohshima teaches the following limitations of claim 1: A camera monitor system (CMS) for a vehicle, comprising: a wing including a housing configured to be secured to the vehicle (See Figs. 1-4, housing 2); a camera assembly having a camera mounted to the wing with a bracket assembly, the camera including an image capture unit configured to provide a desired field of view of the vehicle (¶0029-0031, 0036: a camera unit 30 is mounted in the side mirror housing 2 using a bracket 40); a display configured to depict at least a portion of the field of view (¶0047, Figs. 4-5, a display 90); and a controller in communication with the camera and the display (Fig. 5, ECU 80).
Oshima does not disclose wherein the bracket assembly comprises first, second, and third brackets configured for adjustment of the camera with respect to first, second, and third dimensions.
However, Weaver teaches wherein the bracket assembly comprises first, second, and third brackets configured for adjustment of the camera with respect to first, second, and third dimensions (Figs. 2-4: col. 4, lines 12-14: mounting assembly 20 generally includes a first bracket or yaw bracket 22, a second bracket or tilt bracket 24, and a third bracket or pan bracket 26).
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 Ohshima’s vehicle mounted camera system by incorporating a multi-axes camera mounting assembly which is configurable to be adjusted to a desired fixed position, as taught by Weaver, in order to easily orient the camera to the desired fixed position. (Weaver: col. 2, lines 8-16).
Regarding claim 2, Oshima teaches the system of claim 1, the first bracket operatively mounted to the housing (¶0029-0031, 0036: a camera unit 30 is mounted in the side mirror housing 2 using a bracket 40). Furthermore, Weaver teaches wherein the first, second, and third brackets are positioned in a nested configuration, the camera mounted to the third bracket (See Figs. 2-4, brackets 22, 24 and 26, and camera 12). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim1 applies here.
Regarding claim 3, Oshima in view of Weaver teaches the system of claim 2. Weaver further teaches wherein the first, second, and third brackets are connected serially, the second bracket interconnected between the first and third brackets (See Figs. 2-4, brackets 22, 24 and 26).
Regarding claims 4-6, Oshima teaches the system of claim 2, the base affixed to the housing (¶0029-0031, 0036: a camera unit 30 is mounted in the side mirror housing 2 using a bracket 40). Furthermore, Weaver teaches wherein the first bracket is adjustably supported with first fasteners by a base for movement in first dimension, wherein the second bracket is adjustably supported with second fasteners by the first bracket for movement in the second dimension, wherein the third bracket is adjustably supported with third fasteners by the second bracket for pivoting in the third dimension (See Figs. 2-4, brackets 22, 24 and 26, and fasteners 30, 37, 42, 46). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim1 applies here.
Regarding claim 7, Oshima in view of Weaver teaches the system of claim 3. Weaver further teaches wherein the first dimension is roll, the second dimension is pitch, and the third dimension is yaw (Figs. 2-4: col. 4, lines 12-14: mounting assembly 20 generally includes a first bracket or yaw bracket 22, a second bracket or tilt bracket 24, and a third bracket or pan bracket 26). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim1 applies here.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is drawn to a method claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is drawn to a method claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 7, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claims 16-18, Ohshima in view of Weaver teaches the method of claim 11. Weaver further teaches the method comprising, before the adjusting step, unlocking at least one of the base, the first bracket, the second bracket, and the third bracket; wherein the unlocking step includes loosening at least one fastener; locking the first bracket in position with a fastener (col. 5, lines 26-28: To adjust the yaw, yaw-lock fasteners 37 are loosened and yaw bracket 22, along with camera 12, is rotated about yaw axis A.sub.1. See also col. 5, lines 37-64, tilt adjustment…When the desired yaw is achieved, yaw-lock fasteners 37 are tightened, col. 6, lines 6-14: pan adjustment). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 11 applies here.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a method claim and recites the limitation analogous to claims 2 and 3, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claims 2 and 3.
Claim(s) 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohshima et al. (US 20130033604 A1) in view of Weaver (US 7440027 B2) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Koetje et al. (US 20250018866 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ohshima in view of Weaver does not teach the method comprising: determining a change in vehicle position in at least one of a yaw, pitch, and roll directions, wherein the adjusting is based on the determined change.
However, Koetje teaches determining a change in vehicle position in at least one of a yaw, pitch, and roll directions, wherein the adjusting is based on the determined change (¶0032: Referring now to FIG. 6, in some examples, the field of views of one or more cameras of the vehicle may be dynamically adjusted based on user inputs (e.g., turn signals, steering wheel angle, throttle/brake control, etc.)).
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 Ohshima in view of Weaver by incorporating the teaching of Koetje, in order to expand the driver’s field of view beyond what mirrors provide (Koetje: ¶0032-0033).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to a method claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 13, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohshima et al. (US 20130033604 A1) in view of Weaver (US 7440027 B2) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Tagaya (US 20210266429 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Ohshima in view of Weaver teach the method of claim 11, However, Ohshima in view of Weaver does not explicitly teach the method comprising: after the adjusting, securing a cover to the wing.
However, Tagaya at ¶0042-0043 discloses a lens protection member 110 including top cover 120 attached the camera holding body after adjusting the orientation of a camera unit 200. See Tagaya Figs. 1-5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed to combine the prior arts and arrive at the claimed invention, since 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. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teaching of Ohshima in view of Weaver using a known method of attaching the cover to the camera holding body after adjusting the origination of the camera unit, as taught by Tagaya, to arrive at the claimed invention of “after the adjusting, securing a cover to the wing”, to achieve a predictable results of providing a lens protection mechanism.
Regarding claim 15, Ohshima in view of Weaver teaches the method of claim 11. However, Ohshima in view of Weaver does not explicitly teach the method comprising: before the adjusting step, removing a portion of the wing to access at least one of the base, the first bracket, the second bracket, and the third bracket.
However, Tagaya at ¶0042-0043 discloses with a top cover 120 opened the user adjusts the orientation of the camera unit 200.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed to combine the prior arts and arrive at the claimed invention, since 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. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the teaching of Ohshima in view of Weaver using a known method of opening the cover and adjusting the orientation of the camera unit, as taught by Tagaya, to arrive at the claimed invention of “before the adjusting step, removing a portion of the wing to access at least one of the base, the first bracket, the second bracket, and the third bracket” to achieve a predictable result of gaining access to adjust the camera orientation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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