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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 08/12/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 filed on 08/12/2026 are currently pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s)1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment field on 08/12/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (US 6,734911), in view of Ahiska et al. (US 2017/0019605), in view of Mulin et al.( US 2011/0216197).
As per claim 1, An imaging system comprising:
“a multirange camera having an imager and a lens,” ( Lyons, Figure1A discloses camera with an image sensor and lens 10, Col 3, line 4-6 discloses the system uses a camera equipped with dual-angle optics to obtain both a wide-angle image and a narrow-angle image of a scene(Multirange camera).)
“wherein the lens includes a plurality of regions and wherein each region in the plurality of regions is physically distinct from each other region, and wherein a field of view generated by the camera includes a plurality of zones;” ( Lyons, Col. 3, line 15-20 disclose the optics form a narrow-angle image of the point and a central area surrounding the point on a central region of the image sensor, and form a wide-angle image of an area surrounding the central area on a peripheral region of the image sensor. Fig. 3A discloses a circular array of wide angle optical component and annular narrow angle, further Col. 5, lines 47-49 discloses The focusing optics in the camera 17 focuses this light onto a central region 26 of an image sensor 43 (illustrated in FIG. 1C). The annular field of view between the cones of rays 20D and 20B is refracted by the wide-angle portion 12 of the lens element 10. The focusing optics in the camera 17 focuses this light onto an annular or peripheral region 27 on the image sensor 43. further Col. 8, line 51 discloses FIG. 5B. Element 31 is a convex lens that forms an image with a narrow-angle view onto a central region 26 (shown in FIG. 5B) of the image sensor 43. Element 32 is a toroidal convex lens which resembles an ordinary convex lens with a hole bored through the center. This toroidal lens element 32 focuses an image of a wide-angle scene onto a peripheral region 27 (shown in FIG. 5B) of the image sensor 43. Also Col12, lines 39-40 discloses the optics includes a lens with a circular central portion and an annular region coinciding.)
“and a controller in communication with the multirange camera and configured to control one or more vehicle systems,” (Lyons, Col . 11 line 67-Col.12 line1 discloses Outputs from the image sensor (not shown) of the camera 51 are provided to the tracking controller 67, which generates control signals.)
“by separating the image into multiple distinct zone images,” (Lyons, Col. 7, line 18 discloses The output signals 13B from the image sensor 43 that correspond to the central region 26 of the image sensor 43 are used to generate output image, line 36 discloses the output signals 13B. generated by the image sensor 43 corresponding to the peripheral region 27 may be processed so as to correct for the distortion introduced by the wide-angle portion 12 of the lens 10. And in line 55 discloses output signals 13B corresponding to the peripheral region 27 of the image sensor 43 are provided to the tracking system 15 (separating output signals corresponding central sensor region and peripheral region) )
“separately processing each distinct zone image using a processing procedure corresponding to the zone image being processed,”(Lyons, Col 9, line 54- 59 discloses The inverse distortion algorithm transforms the image captured by the peripheral region 27 of the image sensor 43 into an undistorted image with a blank region in the center. The image corresponding to the central region 26 of the image sensor 43 is then used to fill in this blank region, resulting in an undistorted composite image.)
“ recombining the zone images into a single processed image, and providing the single processed image to at least one vision system.” (Lyons, Col. 9 54-59 disclose the inverse distortion algorithm transforms the peripheral region into an undistorted image with a blank region in the center. The image corresponding to the central region 26 of the image sensor 43 is then used to fill in this blank region, resulting in an undistorted composite image. then line 61 discloses object (OBT) is found in the composite image, then Col 10, line 5 discloses the tracking system 15 sends drive signals 15B to the PT base 16 to aim the camera 14(vision system). )
However Lyons does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Ahiska from similar filed of endeavor “the controller including a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores instructions configured to cause the processor to process an image received from the imager, by separating the image into multiple distinct zone images” (Ahiska, ¶[0041] discloses a programmable image processing wide-angle video camera. The video camera comprises a capture circuit capturing a wide-angle field of view in high resolution and a processing circuit capable of executing a plurality of software tasks on a plurality of regions. The video camera includes a data memory and a program memory for storing programs for the processing circuit based upon the captured wide angle field of view, and a network connection coupled to the processing circuit. A programmable wide-angle video camera used in surveillance and security applications is disclosed in which multiple objects can be processed by the camera and the results of the processing transmitted to a base station. ¶[0107] discloses an image processing circuit coupled to the image sensor and configured to receive the electronic image and to assign a first field of interest (e.g., a ROI) to a first portion of the electronic image, and to assign a second field of interest to a second portion of the electronic image, wherein the first portion of the electronic image differs from the second portion of the electronic image (e.g., separate virtual camera views).)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ahiska technique of multiple view, wide angle camera into Lyons technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Ahiska technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Ahiska into Lyons in order to correct image distortion in a camera which can capture wide field of view. (Refer to Ahiska paragraph [0007].)
However Lyonsas modified by Ahiska does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Mulin from similar filed of endeavor “and wherein separately processing each distinct zone image using a processing procedure corresponding to the zone image being processed includes processing a first set of zone images corresponding to a first region using a close range imaging process and processing a second set of zone images using a second process distinct from the close range imaging process.”(Mulin, ¶[0016] discloses the camera is preferably used to detect rain, particularly raindrops on the windscreen of the vehicle, and also preferably, for one or more other driving aid functions such as detecting obstacles on the road, headlight automation, line detection, fog detection, visibility measurement etc. ¶[0020] discloses obtaining on the sensor a first clear image of drops of water on the windscreen, and in the background, within the same image, the scenario of the road which is blurred, significantly juxtaposed to a second clear image of the scenario of the road, even if there are drops of water on the windscreen. ¶ [0022] discloses the algorithms of detection may be applied on the zone of the image corresponding to their need, in optimal fashion.¶[0023] discloses each part of the image is in some way optimal for each category of software: optimal for the detection of drops with the part focused in close-range field and optimal for applications in long-range field with the part of the image focused to the infinite. ¶[0066] and ¶[0078].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mulin technique of camera setup in a vehicle into Lyons as modified by Ahiska technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Mulin technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons as modified by Ahiska. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mulin into Lyons as modified by Ahiska in order to accurately detect objects in distinct regions of an image around a vehicle. (Refer to Mulin paragraph [0014].)
Claim 12 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 1 above.
As per claim 4, The imaging system of claim 1, “wherein each zone is a single continuous shape.” (Lyons, Col. 5, lines 47-49 discloses The focusing optics in the camera 17 focuses this light onto a central region 26 of an image sensor 43 (illustrated in FIG. 1C). The annular field of view between the cones of rays 20D and 20B is refracted by the wide-angle portion 12 of the lens element 10. The focusing optics in the camera 17 focuses this light onto an annular or peripheral region 27 on the image sensor 43. Also Col12, lines 39-40 discloses the optics includes a lens with a circular central portion and an annular region coinciding.)
Claim(s) 2 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (US 6,734911), in view of Ahiska et al. (US 2017/0019605), in view of Mulin et al.( US 2011/0216197), further in view of Roulet et al. (US 2022/0051366).
As per claim 2, The imaging system of claim 1, However Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Roulet from similar filed of endeavor “wherein each zone includes a lens distortion distinct from a lens distortion in each other zone.” (Roulet, ¶[0008] discloses In the central region of the field of view, corresponding to the maximum magnification hybrid zoom (or minimum design field of view), the distortion profile must have an almost constant magnification to create an output with constant resolution close to a 1:1 pixel ratio between image sensor useable pixels and output image pixels. Then, for larger fields of view of the wide-angle lens than the minimum design field of view, the magnification (distortion profile) drops in order to maintain a similar image resolution even with an increasing output image field of view. At the edge of the field of view of the wide-angle lens, the magnification is minimum and defines the maximum design field of view of the continuous hybrid zoom system. ¶[0017], figure 2, discloses showing the image captured from the wide-angle lens with a constant magnification in the center and then decreasing toward the edge. ¶[0024] discloses a central zone 210 has a preferably constant magnification that is a maximum magnification value of the whole field of view. Outside of this central zone 210, the magnification is lower and drops with increasing the field of view. ¶[0031] discloses the higher magnification in the center as compared to the magnification toward the edges as illustrated in FIG. 2. ¶[0034] discloses he wide-angle lens has a distortion profile with a big change of magnification across the field of view. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Roulet technique of distortion correction in images into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Roulet technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Roulet into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin in order to provide better resolution images which maintain high quality level of information in each pixel. (Refer to Roulet paragraph [0006].)
Claim 19 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (US 6,734911), in view of Ahiska et al. (US 2017/0019605), in view of Mulin et al.( US 2011/0216197), further in view of Eliazov et al. (US 2024/0005461).
As per claim 3, The imaging system of claim 1, However Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Eliazov from similar filed of endeavor “wherein each zone includes a pixel density distinct from a pixel density of each other zone.” (Eliazov, ¶[0004] discloses a pixel density in the resulting compensated images is increased in defined areas of the image due to the distortion, and the defined areas of increased pixel density in the compensated images correspond to a region of interest within the image, wherein the region of interest is smaller than the field of view of the camera. See ¶[0018-0019], then ¶[0021] discloses when barrel distortion occurs, pixel density is lower in the center of the image as compared to the edges and especially the corners. If pincushion distortion occurs (FIG. 2 C), pixel density is higher in the center of the image as compared to the edges and especially the corners of the image.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Eliazov technique of distortion compensation in a driver assistance system into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Eliazov technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Eliazov to Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin in order to increase road safety. (Refer to Eliazov paragraph [0003].)
As per claim 11, The imaging system of claim 1, However Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Eliazov from similar filed of endeavor “wherein the at least one vision system is a vehicle vision system.” (Eliazov, ¶[0004] discloses A driver assistance system of the present disclosure can be used for a vehicle and includes a camera mounted on the vehicle and configured to capture one or more images inside and/or outside of the vehicle, and a processing unit, wherein the camera has a defined field of view, the camera includes an optical lens that causes a distortion of the captured images.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Eliazov technique of distortion compensation in a driver assistance system into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Eliazov technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Eliazov to Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin in order to increase road safety. (Refer to Eliazov paragraph [0003].)
Claim 18 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 11 above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (US 6,734911), in view of Ahiska et al. (US 2017/0019605), in view of Mulin et al.( US 2011/0216197), in view of Kim et al. (US 20230138770).
As per claim 5, The imaging system of claim 1, However Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Kim from similar filed of endeavor “wherein at least one zone is a plurality of discontinuous shapes.” (Kim, ¶[0062] discloses the image sensor 10 may be driven to extract pixel signals of pixels from an entire region of the pixel array 13 or may be driven to select pixels in a plurality of separated regions (hatched regions) from among the entire region of the pixel array 13 and to extract pixel signals of the selected pixels. ¶[0064] discloses the region of interest may correspond to a plurality of regions separated from each other on the pixel array.¶[0068] discloses the controller 19 may control the first and second selection/read-out circuits 15 and 17 to select pixels in the plurality of non-contiguous regions of the pixel array 13 and extract pixel information from the selected pixels. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kim technique of image processing into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Kim technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kim into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin in order to provide higher resolution image with entire information of a region of interest. (Refer to Kim paragraph [0005].)
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (US 6,734911), in view of Ahiska et al. (US 2017/0019605), in view of Mulin et al.( US 2011/0216197), in view of Balcioglu et al. (US 2019/0342518).
As per claim 6, The imaging system of claim 1, However Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Balcioglu from similar filed of endeavor “wherein separating the image into multiple distinct zone images” (Balcioglu, ¶[0026] discloses SER 122 receives a multi-video signal 131/132 from SoC. the multi-video signal 131/132 comprises two video signals and may be referred to as a super-frame image stream. SER 122, comprising an asymmetric image splitter. ¶[0068] discloses serializer in communication with the system on a chip and including an asymmetric image splitter engine configured to split the super-frame of image streams into a plurality of separate image streams )
“includes providing the image and a set of X,Y blanking zones to a serializer/deserializer module of the controller.” ( Balcioglu, ¶[0032] discloses FIG. 2A depicts a Super-Frame 200 of video images for multi-streaming video, In FIG. 2A, VT represents the amount of vertical blanking/padding and HT represents the amount of horizontal blanking/padding. ¶[0032] discloses The images are formatted and transmitted across the SOC output to a serializer. ¶[0058] discloses SoC 521 outputs a video multi-streaming signal 531 to SER 522. The output of SER 522 may be GMSL 523 and GMSL 524, which are inputs to DES 525 and DES 52. ¶[0059] discloses The coordinates of Video Image 222 and Video Image 224 on super-frame 200 are programmed in to the firmware. This allows distinguishing between Video Image 222 and Video Image 224 of the incoming data. ¶[0060-0064] and ¶[0069] and ¶[0073].)
“and outputting a plurality of zone images from the serializer/deserializer module”( Balcioglu, Figure 1B , ¶[0026] discloses SER 122, comprising an asymmetric image splitter, and generates GMSL 123 and GSML 124, which they go to separate deserializers DES 125 and DES 126. ¶[0058] discloses The output of SER 522 may be GMSL 523 and GMSL 524, which are inputs to DES 525 and DES 526. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Balcioglu technique image splitter into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Balcioglu technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Balcioglu into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Mulin in order to provide an asymmetric image splitter that may be flexible and can allow vendors to independently design their products while reducing the memory requirements. (Refer to Balcioglu paragraph [0006].)
Claim 13 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 6 above.
As per claim 7, The imaging system of claim 6, “wherein a number of zone images in the plurality of zone images is equal to a number of zones in the plurality of zones.” (Balcioglu, ¶[0031] discloses Super-frame 200 of video images comprises the combination of two video images, Display1 202, and Display2 204. ¶[0036] discloses the video image of Display 1 and the video image of Display 2 are separated (split) and can be separately input to DES 125 and DES 126.33. ¶[0053] discloses These reconstructed images are input to DES 125 and DES 126, respectively. Reconstructed Video Image 400 comprises the Video Image of Display 1 402, and reconstructed Video Image 420 comprises the video image of Display 2 422. Video image 400 also corresponds to Display 1 202, and Video Image 420 corresponds to Display2 204. )
Claim 14 has been analyzed and is rejected for the reasons indicated in claim 7above.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons (US 6,734911), in view of Ahiska et al. (US 2017/0019605), further in view of Viala et al. (US 2019/0004531), in view of Mulin et al.( US 2011/0216197).
As per claim 20, “an imaging system including a multirange camera having an imager and a lens,” ( Lyons, Figure1A discloses camera with an image sensor and lens 10, Col 3, line 4-6 discloses the system uses a camera equipped with dual-angle optics to obtain both a wide-angle image and a narrow-angle image of a scene(Multirange camera).)
“wherein the lens includes a plurality of regions and wherein each region in the plurality of regions is physically distinct from each other region, and wherein a field of view generated by the camera includes a plurality of zones;” ( Lyons, Col. 3, line 15-20 disclose the optics form a narrow-angle image of the point and a central area surrounding the point on a central region of the image sensor, and form a wide-angle image of an area surrounding the central area on a peripheral region of the image sensor. Fig. 3A discloses a circular array of wide angle optical component and annular narrow angle, further Col. 5, lines 47-49 discloses The focusing optics in the camera 17 focuses this light onto a central region 26 of an image sensor 43 (illustrated in FIG. 1C). The annular field of view between the cones of rays 20D and 20B is refracted by the wide-angle portion 12 of the lens element 10. The focusing optics in the camera 17 focuses this light onto an annular or peripheral region 27 on the image sensor 43. further Col. 8, line 51 discloses FIG. 5B. Element 31 is a convex lens that forms an image with a narrow-angle view onto a central region 26 (shown in FIG. 5B) of the image sensor 43. Element 32 is a toroidal convex lens which resembles an ordinary convex lens with a hole bored through the center. This toroidal lens element 32 focuses an image of a wide-angle scene onto a peripheral region 27 (shown in FIG. 5B) of the image sensor 43. Also Col12, lines 39-40 discloses the optics includes a lens with a circular central portion and an annular region coinciding.)
“and a controller in communication with the multirange camera and configured to control one or more vehicle systems,” (Lyons, Col . 11 line 67-Col.12 line1 discloses Outputs from the image sensor (not shown) of the camera 51 are provided to the tracking controller 67, which generates control signals.)
“by separating the image into multiple distinct zone images,” (Lyons, Col. 7, line 18 discloses The output signals 13B from the image sensor 43 that correspond to the central region 26 of the image sensor 43 are used to generate output image, line 36 discloses the output signals 13B. generated by the image sensor 43 corresponding to the peripheral region 27 may be processed so as to correct for the distortion introduced by the wide-angle portion 12 of the lens 10. And in line 55 discloses output signals 13B corresponding to the peripheral region 27 of the image sensor 43 are provided to the tracking system 15 (separating output signals corresponding central sensor region and peripheral region) )
“separately processing each distinct zone image using a processing procedure corresponding to the zone image being processed,”(Lyons, Col 9, line 54- 59 discloses The inverse distortion algorithm transforms the image captured by the peripheral region 27 of the image sensor 43 into an undistorted image with a blank region in the center. The image corresponding to the central region 26 of the image sensor 43 is then used to fill in this blank region, resulting in an undistorted composite image.)
“ recombining the zone images into a single processed image, and providing the single processed image to at least one vision system.” (Lyons, Col. 9 54-59 disclose the inverse distortion algorithm transforms the peripheral region into an undistorted image with a blank region in the center. The image corresponding to the central region 26 of the image sensor 43 is then used to fill in this blank region, resulting in an undistorted composite image. then line 61 discloses object (OBT) is found in the composite image, then Col 10, line 5 discloses the tracking system 15 sends drive signals 15B to the PT base 16 to aim the camera 14(vision system). )
However Lyons does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Ahiska from similar filed of endeavor “the controller including a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores instructions configured to cause the processor to process an image received from the imager, by separating the image into multiple distinct zone images” (Ahiska, ¶[0041] discloses a programmable image processing wide-angle video camera. The video camera comprises a capture circuit capturing a wide-angle field of view in high resolution and a processing circuit capable of executing a plurality of software tasks on a plurality of regions. The video camera includes a data memory and a program memory for storing programs for the processing circuit based upon the captured wide angle field of view, and a network connection coupled to the processing circuit. A programmable wide-angle video camera used in surveillance and security applications is disclosed in which multiple objects can be processed by the camera and the results of the processing transmitted to a base station. ¶[0107] discloses an image processing circuit coupled to the image sensor and configured to receive the electronic image and to assign a first field of interest (e.g., a ROI) to a first portion of the electronic image, and to assign a second field of interest to a second portion of the electronic image, wherein the first portion of the electronic image differs from the second portion of the electronic image (e.g., separate virtual camera views).)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ahiska technique of multiple view, wide angle camera into Lyons technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Ahiska technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Ahiska into Lyons in order to correct image distortion in a camera which can capture wide field of view. (Refer to Ahiska paragraph [0007].)
However Lyons as modified by Ahiska does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Viala from similar filed of endeavor “A vehicle comprising: an imaging system including a multirange camera having an imager and a lens” (¶[0008] discloses a vehicle control device that makes use of a progressive lens. The vehicle control device also includes a camera configured to capture images of the environment and communicate the captured images to the control unit. The vehicle control device further includes a progressive lens coupled to the camera so as to focus the captured image over a progressive focus area.)
“a controller configured to control one or more vehicle systems”(¶[0015] discloses The vehicle control device comprises: a control unit 20 communicatively coupled to a camera 30 having an associated progressive lens 40. ¶[0018] discloses The vehicle systems typically adapted or controlled by ADAS features. Accordingly, the vehicle systems include but are not limited to: steering systems, braking systems, acceleration systems, navigation systems, and the like. )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Viala technique of progressive vehicle enhanced imaging into Lyons as modified by Ahiska technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Viala technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons as modified by Ahiska. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Viala into Lyons as modified by Ahiska in order to provide in-focus images with system with lower consumption energy, less failure rate and lower price. (Refer to Viala paragraph [0007].)
However Lyonsas modified by Ahiska as modified by Viala does not explicitly disclose the following which would have been obvious in view of Mulin from similar filed of endeavor “and wherein separately processing each distinct zone image using a processing procedure corresponding to the zone image being processed includes processing a first set of zone images corresponding to a first region using a close range imaging process and processing a second set of zone images using a second process distinct from the close range imaging process.”(Mulin, ¶[0016] discloses the camera is preferably used to detect rain, particularly raindrops on the windscreen of the vehicle, and also preferably, for one or more other driving aid functions such as detecting obstacles on the road, headlight automation, line detection, fog detection, visibility measurement etc. ¶[0020] discloses obtaining on the sensor a first clear image of drops of water on the windscreen, and in the background, within the same image, the scenario of the road which is blurred, significantly juxtaposed to a second clear image of the scenario of the road, even if there are drops of water on the windscreen. ¶ [0022] discloses the algorithms of detection may be applied on the zone of the image corresponding to their need, in optimal fashion.¶[0023] discloses each part of the image is in some way optimal for each category of software: optimal for the detection of drops with the part focused in close-range field and optimal for applications in long-range field with the part of the image focused to the infinite. ¶[0066] and ¶[0078].)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Mulin technique of camera setup in a vehicle into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Viala technique to provide the known and expected uses and benefits of Mulin technique over using a tracking camera with wide-angle and narrow angle views technique of Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Viala. The proposed combination would have constituted a mere arrangement of old elements with each performing their known function, the combination yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mulin into Lyons as modified by Ahiska as modified by Viala in order to accurately detect objects in distinct regions of an image around a vehicle. (Refer to Mulin paragraph [0014].)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and on the pending conditions of the rejected and objected matter set forth in this action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the limitations set forth by each of claims 8-10, 15-17.
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 SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights