DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 03/31/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 2 and 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-9 have been examined and are pending. This Action is Final.
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/ Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendment with respect to claim 1, filed on 03/31/2026, have been considered but are not persuasive. The combination of Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane discloses all the limitation as cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane do not disclose the limitations “wherein the controller outputs a single composite image from the multiple additional cameras to the control device for use in the combined view reducing a bandwidth and minimizing a number of image streams transmitted from the additional vehicle” as amended in claim 1. However, Kuehnle Fig. 1, [0019] discloses the second ECU 24 on the trailer 22 stitches the images from its cameras around the trailer into a partial surround view of the trailer portion and transmit image data to the first ECU 14 on the vehicle to reduce data transmission bandwidth. Hence, Kuehnle discloses the controller outputs a single composite image from the multiple additional cameras to the control device for use in the combined view reducing a bandwidth and minimizing a number of image streams transmitted from the additional vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Petzold, and further incorporate having the controller outputs a single composite image from the multiple additional cameras to the control device for use in the combined view reducing a bandwidth and minimizing a number of image streams transmitted from the additional vehicle, as taught by Kuehnle, to reduce data transmission bandwidth (Kuehnle [0019]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petzold et al. (DE 102016224904) hereinafter Petzold, in view of Kuehnle et al. (U.S. 2016/0366336) hereinafter Kuehnle, further in view of Keane et al. (DE 102019133948 – see translation attached) hereinafter Keane.
Regarding claim 1, Petzold discloses a camera system, in particular a surround-view camera system for a vehicle, comprising
a control device (Petzold Abstract, [0029]-[0034], Figs. 1-3: image processing unit 13 on vehicle 1 as in Fig. 2),
multiple cameras arranged in or on the vehicle (Petzold Abstract, Fig. 2, [0021], [0024]-[0025], [0011]-[0012], [0031]: cameras 2-5 of a vehicle 1), and
multiple additional cameras, arranged in or on the additional vehicle (Petzold Abstract Fig. 2, [0022]-[0023], [0011]-[0018], : cameras 7-9 of trailer 6), wherein
the control device generates a view by the cameras (Petzold [0029], [0025]: panoramic image of the vehicle 1 is generate by the image processing unit 13 using images from cameras 2-5 of the vehicle 1),
generates a view by means of the additional cameras (Petzold [0009], [0028]: combining images from cameras 7-9 of trailer 6 to create a panoramic image of the trailer), and
a combined view is generated from the views of the control device and the controller (Petzold [0033], [0031], [0011]-[0018]: images from cameras 2-5 of the vehicle can be combined with images from camera 7-9 of the trailer to create a combined image);
wherein the control device replaces a rear view stream generated at the vehicle with the view created by the controller in creating the combined view (Petzold [0011]-[0012], [0031]: the image processing unit 13 replaces a trailer area of the vehicle panoramic image, which shows the trailer, with a corresponding image area of the trailer partial panoramic image, which come from the trailer’s three cameras as in [0014]-[0015], [0017]-[0018], depending on a determined angle of rotation of the drawbar).
Petzold does not explicitly disclose a controller which is arranged in or on an additional vehicle; the controller generates a view by means of the additional cameras; wherein the controller outputs a single composite image from the multiple additional cameras to the control device for use in the combined view reducing a bandwidth and minimizing a number of image streams transmitted from the additional vehicle.
However, Kuehnle discloses a controller which is arranged in or on an additional vehicle (Kuehnle Fig. 1, [0019]: A second ECU 24 on the trailer 22. A first electronic control unit ECU 14 on the tractor 12),
the controller generates a view by means of the additional cameras; wherein the controller outputs a single composite image from the multiple additional cameras to the control device for use in the combined view reducing a bandwidth and minimizing a number of image streams transmitted from the additional vehicle (Kuehnle Fig. 1, [0019]: the second ECU 24 on the trailer 22 stitches the images from its cameras around the trailer into a partial surround view of the trailer portion and transmit image data to the first ECU 14 to reduce data transmission bandwidth), and a combined view is generated from the views of the control device and the controller (Kuehnle Fig. 1, [0019]: the first ECU 14 stitches the trailer image data with the previously stitched tractor image data to generate a complete surround view image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Petzold, and further incorporate having a controller which is arranged in or on an additional vehicle; the controller generates a view by means of the additional cameras; wherein the controller outputs a single composite image from the multiple additional cameras to the control device for use in the combined view reducing a bandwidth and minimizing a number of image streams transmitted from the additional vehicle, as taught by Kuehnle, to generate image of the vehicle and the trailer separately and reduce data and images needed to be processed for each of the controller (Kuehnle [0017]).
Petzold does not explicitly disclose wherein the view is a 3-D bowl-shaped view that has been expanded from a first form that includes the additional vehicle to a second form that includes both the additional vehicle and the vehicle.
However, Petzold discloses the view is a 3-D bowl-shaped view that has been expanded from a first form to a second form (Petzold [0015]-[0016], [0029]: the 3-D projection surface includes a first bowl or dish with image taken by the cameras of the vehicle and a second bowl or dish with images taken by the camera of the trailer, in which a first image area of the first dish or bowl can replace a corresponding second area of the second dish or bowl).
Keane discloses wherein the view is a 3-D bowl-shaped view that has been expanded from a first form that includes the additional vehicle to a second form that includes both the additional vehicle and the vehicle (Keane Figs. 2 and 7, [0002], [0005], [0013], [0015]: multiple cameras on vehicle 10 and trailer 16 to capture images and used to create three-dimensional view of the surrounding of the vehicle; [0021]-[0023], [0037]: 3-D bowl shaped view is generated which include a vehicle 10 and trailer 16).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Petzold and Kuehnle, and further incorporate having wherein the view is a 3-D bowl-shaped view that has been expanded from a first form that includes the additional vehicle to a second form that includes both the additional vehicle and the vehicle, as taught by Keane, for an improved 360- degree view of the environment surrounding the vehicle-and-trailer combination (Keane [0010], [0042], [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Petzold discloses wherein the combined view comprises at least one of a two-dimensional (2D} view or a three-dimensional (3D) view (Petzold Abstract, [0004], [0028]-[0029], [0033]: thee-dimensional combined images are generated).
Regarding claim 4, Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Petzold discloses the view is combined, taking account of an angle between the vehicle and the additional vehicle view (Petzold Figs. 1-3, [0010]-[0011], [0013], [0017]-[0018], [0025]-[0027], [0032]-[0034]: the image processing unit replaces a trailer area of the vehicle panoramic image, which shows the trailer, with a corresponding image area of the trailer partial panoramic image, which come from the trailer’s three cameras as in [0014]-[0015], [0017]-[0018], depending on a determined angle of rotation of the drawbar which is angle between the vehicle and the trailer).
Regarding claim 5, Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Petzold discloses the combined view represents an extension, taking account of the view of the control device and/or the view of the controller (Petzold Figs. 1-3, [0011]-[0018], [0025]-[0027], [0031]-[0034]: the image processing unit replaces a trailer area of the vehicle panoramic image, which shows the trailer, with a corresponding image area of the trailer partial panoramic image, which come from the trailer’s three cameras as in [0014]-[0015], [0017]-[0018], to show hidden objects by the trailer, hence the combined image is an extension taking account the view of the vehicle and the trailer).
Regarding claim 6, Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Petzold discloses the control device generates the combined view (Petzold [0033], [0031], [0011]-[0018]: the image processing unit 13 combines images from cameras 2-5 of the vehicle with images from camera 7-9 of the trailer to create a combined image; [0011]-[0012], [0031]: the image processing unit replaces a trailer area of the vehicle panoramic image, which shows the trailer, with a corresponding image area of the trailer partial panoramic image, which come from the trailer’s three cameras as in [0014]-[0015], [0017]-[0018], depending on a determined angle of rotation of the drawbar).
Petzold does not explicitly disclose the view generated by the controller is transmitted by the controller to the control device.
However, Kuehnle discloses the view generated by the controller is transmitted by the controller to the control device and the control device generates the combined view (Kuehnle Fig. 1, [0019]: the second ECU 24 on the trailer 22 stitches the images from its cameras around the trailer into a partial surround view of the trailer portion and transmit image data to the first ECU 14 and the first ECU 14 stitches the trailer image data with the previously stitched tractor image data to generate a complete surround view image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane, and further incorporate having the view generated by the controller is transmitted by the controller to the control device, as taught by Kuehnle, to generate image of the vehicle and the trailer separately and reduce data and images needed to be processed for each of the controller (Kuehnle [0017]).
Regarding claim 8, Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane disclose a method for generating a three-dimensional (3D) view using a camera system for a vehicle having an additional vehicle, wherein the camera system according to claim 1 is provided as the camera system as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Petzold discloses wherein the additional vehicle comprises a trailer coupled to the vehicle, and the multiple additional cameras are arranged in or on the trailer (Petzold Figs. 1-2, Abstract, [0031]: trailer 6 and vehicle 1).
Regarding claim 10, Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane disclose all the limitations of claim 2.
Petzold discloses wherein the 2D view comprises a top view and the 3D view comprises a bowl view (Petzold [0016], [0029]: the three-dimensional images can be a bowl view).
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petzold et al. (DE 102016224904) hereinafter Petzold, in view of Kuehnle et al. (U.S. 2016/0366336) hereinafter Kuehnle, in view of Keane et al. (DE 102019133948 – see translation attached) hereinafter Keane, further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. 2017/0341583) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 3, Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Petzold does not explicitly disclose the views are combined taking account of at least one of a length, a width of at least one of the vehicle or the additional vehicle.
Zhang discloses the views are combined taking account of at least one of a length, a width of at least one of the vehicle or the additional vehicle (Zhang Figs. 1-2 and 5-6, [0077], [0074]-[0075], [0079]-[0080]: the view rendering module 312 processes the vehicle camera image data from the cameras 44 on the vehicle 10 and trailer camera image data from the cameras 44 on the trailer 8 to generate three-dimensional 360 degree view of the vehicle and the trailer together; [0070], [0088], [0108]: trailer dimensions including length, width and height of the trailer 8 coupled to the vehicle 10 is used for the view rendering module 312 to determine size of the rendered view so that the view contains the trailer 8).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane, and further incorporate having the views are combined taking account of at least one of a length, a width of at least one of the vehicle or the additional vehicle, as taught by Zhang, to make sure the generated image include the view of the trailer (Zhang [0070], [0077]).
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petzold et al. (DE 102016224904) hereinafter Petzold, in view of Kuehnle et al. (U.S. 2016/0366336) hereinafter Kuehnle, in view of Keane et al. (DE 102019133948 – see translation attached) hereinafter Keane, further in view of Oba (U.S. 2019/0248288).
Regarding claim 7, Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Petzold does not explicitly disclose in order to generate the view, the controller enlists a virtual camera, a position of the virtual camera substantially corresponds to a position of a first camera of the multiple cameras of the vehicle which is directed toward the additional vehicle.
Keane discloses in order to generate the view, the controller enlists a virtual camera (Keane [0014], [0041]-[0044]: location and angle orientation for a virtual camera can be selected for defining the viewpoint for the three-dimensional view).
Furthermore, Oba discloses in order to generate the view, the controller enlists a virtual camera, a position of the virtual camera substantially corresponds to a position of a first camera of the multiple cameras of the vehicle which is directed toward the additional vehicle (Oba Figs. 4-16, [0110]: integrating the rear image and the left and right side L/R images so that infinite points of the rear image and the L/R images coincide with each other and same subjects coincide with each other; [0112]: apply affine transform for the L/R images so that the infinity points IPL and IPR of the L/R images coincides with the infinite point IPC of the rear image. Hence, enlist a virtual camera, a position of the virtual camera substantially corresponds to a position of the rear camera of the vehicle which is directed toward the rear of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Petzold and Kuehnle and Keane, and further incorporate having in order to generate the view, the controller enlists a virtual camera, a position of the virtual camera substantially corresponds to a position of a first camera of the multiple cameras of the vehicle which is directed toward the additional vehicle, as taught by Oba, for the driver to easily recognize objects in the integrated image (Oba [0005], [0218], [0231]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHLEEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0626. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached on 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHLEEN V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486