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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/09/2026 in response to the Final office action mailed on 11/14/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112(a): The rejections of claims for failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn, as the amended claims have properly addressed the rejections recited in the Final office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 101: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, claim 1 as amended has properly addressed the rejections recited in the Final office action. Accordingly, the rejections of dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7 are withdrawn. Regarding claims 8 and 9, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are maintained as indicated below in the office action.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea in the form of mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite acquiring information and carrying out object recognition.
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of claim 8 falls into at least one of the enumerated categories of apparatuses and processes. Therefore, claim 8 pass step 1.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, the claimed invention of claim 8 is directed to a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of an abstract idea. The claimed invention of claims 1 and 8 is directed to processes that acquire information and carry out object recognition which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The steps of acquiring information and carrying out object recognition are merely a generic computer function that is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply exception. The mere nominal recitation of an image sensor or a display device does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. In particular, claim 8 recites “a first image sensor, which is configured to acquire a first spatial area formed in the surroundings of the motor vehicle having a first partial area and a second partial area” and “an evaluation device which is configured to carry out object recognition on the second partial area.” Based on the limitations, the second partial area is a real world area which is a part of the first spatial area formed in the surroundings of the motor vehicle. Therefore, the limitations can be performed in the human mind as the human brain can automatically focus on an object in real world view and recognize the object. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Further, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 8 recites elements of using generic computer components, an image sensor and a display device, to perform the acquiring step. The generic computer components in the step are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Moreover, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the elements of “display an image detail” and “adapt the image detail” merely recite a basic function of a display and image processing, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2B, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the generic computer component to perform acquiring step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the elements of “display an image detail” and “adapt the image detail” are readily known in the art and do not improve the “functioning” of a conventional display or related computer components.
Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)as being anticipated by Ikari (US 2024/0015269 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ikari discloses a device for adapting a display of surroundings of a motor vehicle (Ikari at para. [0027]: “The camera system 100 includes the imaging units 20 and 21, processing units 110 and 120, an integration processing unit 130, and the display units 140 and 141”), the device comprising:
a first image sensor, which is configured to acquire a first spatial area formed in the surroundings of the motor vehicle having a first partial area and a second partial area (Ikari at para. [0043]: “FIG. 4A illustrates an example of the image captured by the imaging unit 20 serving as the right side camera”);
a display device, which is configured to display an image detail which includes the first partial area (Ikari at para. [0026]: “The captured images are displayed on display units 140 and 141 (see FIG. 2) included in the vehicle 10”; para. [0064]: “clipping unit 131 performs the operation of clipping the rear monitoring area 50, as a substitute for the right door mirror, and the display image generated by the display processing unit 132 is as illustrated in FIG. 8B”); and
an evaluation device which is configured to carry out object recognition on the second partial area (Ikari at para. [0066]: “FIG. 9A illustrates the image signal received from the processing unit 110 and also illustrates a state where the object detection is performed in the image. In FIG. 9A, a person 60 is included in an area other than the rear monitoring area 50 in the image” “if the person 60 is detected within the predetermined distance, the processing of step S208 is performed”), and to adapt the image detail such that at least an object of the second partial area is displayed by the display device when the object recognition has had a result that the second partial area includes the object, and when the object meets a criterion (Ikari at para. [0066]: “if the person 60 is detected within the predetermined distance, the processing of step S208 is performed” “In step S208, the integration processing unit 130 clips a clipping area 55 including the rear monitoring area 50 and the person 60 as the detected object from the original image signal using the image clipping unit 131”; para. [0067]: “In step S209, the display processing unit 132 generates a display image using an image of the clipping area 55 obtained in step S208. In this processing, since the detected object is displayed in the clipping area 55, the display processing unit 132 performs emphasis processing on the detected object”).
Regarding claim 9, Ikari discloses the device according to claim 8.
Ikari further discloses a motor vehicle comprising the device according to claim 8 (Ikari at para. [0025]: “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a vehicle 10 as a moving object in which imaging units 20 and 21 according to the present exemplary embodiment are installed”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikari in view of Ono (US 2016/0323504 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ikari discloses a method for adapting a display of surroundings of a motor vehicle (Ikari at para. [0026]: “The captured images are displayed on display units 140 and 141 (see FIG. 2) included in the vehicle 10”), the method comprising:
acquiring a first spatial area formed in the surroundings of the motor vehicle having a first partial area and a second partial area by a first image sensor (Ikari at para. [0043]: “FIG. 4A illustrates an example of the image captured by the imaging unit 20 serving as the right side camera”);
displaying an image detail which includes the first partial area by a display device (Ikari at para. [0064]: “clipping unit 131 performs the operation of clipping the rear monitoring area 50, as a substitute for the right door mirror, and the display image generated by the display processing unit 132 is as illustrated in FIG. 8B”);
carrying out object recognition on the second partial area (Ikari at para. [0066]: “FIG. 9A illustrates the image signal received from the processing unit 110 and also illustrates a state where the object detection is performed in the image. In FIG. 9A, a person 60 is included in an area other than the rear monitoring area 50 in the image” “if the person 60 is detected within the predetermined distance, the processing of step S208 is performed”); and
adapting the image detail such that an object of the second partial area is displayed by the display device when carrying out the object recognition has had a result that the object is represented in the second partial area, and when the object meets a criterion (Ikari at para. [0066]: “if the person 60 is detected within the predetermined distance, the processing of step S208 is performed” “In step S208, the integration processing unit 130 clips a clipping area 55 including the rear monitoring area 50 and the person 60 as the detected object from the original image signal using the image clipping unit 131”; para. [0067]: “In step S209, the display processing unit 132 generates a display image using an image of the clipping area 55 obtained in step S208. In this processing, since the detected object is displayed in the clipping area 55, the display processing unit 132 performs emphasis processing on the detected object”).
However, Ikari does not explicitly state:
wherein the image detail is adapted by adapting an alignment of the first image sensor such that the object is represented in a central area of the first spatial area.
In the same field of endeavor, Ono teaches:
wherein the image detail is adapted by adapting an alignment of the first image sensor such that the object is represented in a central area of the first spatial area (Ono at para. [0048]: “FIG. 1, an auto-tracking imaging apparatus 10 mainly has an apparatus main body 2, an imaging section 11, a panning/tilting device 30 (FIG. 5)”; para. [0113]: “the panning/tilting mechanism 32 may be controlled such that the position (barycentric position) of the object in the image is set in at least an angle of view of the telephoto image (preferably, set in a predetermined range (for example, in a focus detection region) in the vicinity of the center of the telephoto image)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ikari by adding the alignment of Ono with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Ikari in view of Ono is to provide focused display of detected objects.
Regarding claim 2, Ikari in view of Ono teaches the method according to claim 1.
Ikari further discloses further comprising:
comparing the object ascertained by the object recognition with one or more reference objects, wherein the criterion is met when the ascertained object corresponds with one of the one or more reference objects (Ikari at para. [0063]: “In step S207, the integration processing unit 130 refers to the object name information indicating the classification of the object received from the processing unit 110 at the previous stage, and determines whether the detected object is a predetermined object. In the present exemplary embodiment, the predetermined object refers to an obstacle that can come into contact with the vehicle 10, such as a person, a motorcycle, or an automobile. If the detected object is the predetermined object (YES in step S207), the processing proceeds to step S208”).
Regarding claim 3, Ikari in view of Ono teaches the method according to claim 1.
Ikari further discloses further comprising:
determining a distance between the object ascertained by the object recognition and the motor vehicle, wherein the criterion is met when the distance falls below a specified distance (Ikari at para. [0062]: “In step S206, the integration processing unit 130 refers to the distance information regarding the distance to the object received from the processing unit 110 at the previous stage, and determines whether the distance to the detected object is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold (a predetermined distance). For example, the integration processing unit 130 determines whether the detected object is within predetermined meters from the vehicle 10. If the integration processing unit 130 determines that the detected object is within the predetermined distance (YES in step S206), the processing proceeds to step S208”).
Regarding claim 6, Ikari in view of Ono teaches the method according to claim 1.
Ikari further discloses wherein the image detail is adapted by enlarging the image detail such that the second partial area is at least partially displayed by the display device (Ikari at para. [0069]: “In step S210, the integration processing unit 130 clips a clipping area 56 including the ball 63 as the detected object as well as the rear monitoring area 50 from the original image signal using the image clipping unit 131. The integration processing unit 130 then performs processing for enlarging or reducing an image of the clipping area 56 as appropriate, and combines the resulting image with an image of the rear monitoring area 50 clipped separately, thereby generating a combined image”).
Regarding claim 7, Ikari in view of Ono teaches the method according to claim 1.
Ikari further discloses further comprising:
acquiring a second spatial area by way of a second image sensor (Ikari at para. [0025]: “the vehicle 10 includes the imaging units 20 and 21 as side cameras that capture images of the surroundings of the vehicle 10. The imaging units 20 and 21 have similar configurations, and imaging areas thereof will thus be described using the imaging unit 20 as an example”; para. [0030]: “The imaging unit 21 captures images of the left side, left front side, and left rear side of the vehicle 10 as a substitute for a left door mirror. The processing unit 120 is connected to the imaging unit 21 and the integration processing unit 130 and performs various types of processing based on the images captured by the imaging unit 21. The function of the processing unit 120 is similar to that of the processing unit 110”; The imaging unit 20 and the imaging unit 21 perform the same function but acquire images of different surrounding areas);
carrying out second object recognition on the second spatial area (Ikari at para. [0066]: “FIG. 9A illustrates the image signal received from the processing unit 110 and also illustrates a state where the object detection is performed in the image. In FIG. 9A, a person 60 is included in an area other than the rear monitoring area 50 in the image” “if the person 60 is detected within the predetermined distance, the processing of step S208 is performed”); and
adapting the image detail such that a second object of the second spatial area is displayed by the display device when carrying out the second object recognition has had a second result that the second object is represented in the second spatial area, and when the second object meets a second criterion (Ikari at para. [0066]: “if the person 60 is detected within the predetermined distance, the processing of step S208 is performed” “In step S208, the integration processing unit 130 clips a clipping area 55 including the rear monitoring area 50 and the person 60 as the detected object from the original image signal using the image clipping unit 131”; para. [0067]: “In step S209, the display processing unit 132 generates a display image using an image of the clipping area 55 obtained in step S208. In this processing, since the detected object is displayed in the clipping area 55, the display processing unit 132 performs emphasis processing on the detected object”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikari in view of Ono further in view of Kim J. et al. (US 2017/0293198 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ikari in view of Ono teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Ikari in view of Ono does not explicitly state wherein:
the first spatial area is acquired by imaging the spatial area by way of an objective having a variable focal length on the first image sensor, and
the image detail is adapted by reducing the focal length of the objective.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim J. et al. teaches wherein:
the first spatial area is acquired by imaging the spatial area by way of an objective having a variable focal length on the first image sensor (Kim J. et al. at para. [0145]: “The vehicle camera 200 may include a variable lens 300. The variable lens 300 may be controlled by the driver assistance apparatus to change the focal distance of the variable lens 300 and thereby change the focal distance of the camera 200”), and
the image detail is adapted by reducing the focal length of the objective (Kim J. et al. at para. [0145]: “the variable lens 300 may be controlled to change the focal distance of the camera 200 based on detected surroundings of the vehicle, so as to provide a variable view of the surroundings that are appropriate for the situation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ikari in view of Ono by adding the variable focal length of Kim J. et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Ikari in view of Ono further in view of Kim J. et al. is to improve driving safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights