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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because the features recited in claim 2 (multiple displayed fields of view from at least one camera concurrently on separate portions of the display) are recited in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0331628, in view of Cooprider, US Patent Application Publication 2024/0190348.
As to claim 1, Liu et al disclose an A-pillar display device as follows: A vehicle display system (Figures 1 and 3), comprising: at least one camera (first exterior camera 201) having at least one captured field of view that extends at least partially outward from an exterior of a vehicle ([0012-0015], the first exterior camera 201 is mounted on the A-pillar on the outside of the vehicle or alternatively on the side-view mirror; the first exterior camera acquires a scene outside the vehicle based on the visual field data corresponding to a first interior camera 203 which collects facial images of the driver), the shooting angle of which is adjusted ([0013], a data processing device adjusts the shooting angle of the first exterior camera 201 according to the visual field data); a display mounted on a pillar within an interior of the vehicle; a controller coupled to the camera and the display to show a displayed field of view on the display (first display 201, computing device 1), wherein the displayed field of view is at least part of the at least one captured field of view (as indicated above, the displayed field of view is the field of view captured by exterior camera 201) and wherein the controller is configured to provide [more than one] displayed field of view [concurrently] from the at least one camera to the display, wherein the controller adjusts the captured field of view from the camera based on the approximated position of the vehicle occupant such that a portion of a vehicle occupant field of view that is obscured by the pillar is shown on the display ([0013], the data processing device is configured to adjust a first shooting angle of the first interior camera 203…according to head twisting data, adjust a second shooting angle of the first exterior camera 201… according to the visual field data, and adjust a display angle of the A-pillar; [0022], based on the target driving data 204 the display angle of the A-pillar is adjusted, the driving data may include the height, body shape, and position of the human eye during normal driving corresponding to facial images in a database; consequently, Liu discloses adjusting the display field of view according to head twisting data (that is, movement of the driver’s head during driving resulting in different blind spots caused by the A-pillar) and target driving data including the position of the human eye during normal driving.
However Liu fails to explicitly disclose providing “more than one displayed field of view concurrently from the at least one camera to the display”, and “a second camera coupled to the controller and the display, and the second camera having a second captured field of view wherein the controller is configured to show on the display a second displayed field of view that includes at least part of the second captured field of view, wherein the first displayed field of view and second displayed field of view are shown concurrently on separate portions of the display”.
In analogous art, Cooprider teaches a camera monitoring system (CMS) and driver side A-frame display for a vehicle. Specifically, cameras 20a-d capture images of the exterior of the vehicle including the front, rear, and rearward side views [Figure 1B]. The CMS display is positioned on A-frame 692A and includes among other views a display 688A which is a rearward facing side view configured to replace that of a traditional wing mirror and a rearview display 610 configured to replace a traditional rear-view mirror (Figures 7A-C and [0064-0065]. Figure 8 shows an example display 700 concurrently displaying multiple fields of view, [0071-0072]. Cooprider teaches that mounting the rear-view display adjacent the CMS display maintains the rear-view display within the peripheral vision of the vehicle operator such that they are not required to alter their gaze while driving, [0066]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu with the teachings of Cooprider in order to replace mirrors and minimize the necessity to alter one’s gaze while driving.
Claims 2-4 are met as discussed above for claim 1.
As to claim 5, Cooprider teaches that the positioning of the borders and/or regions of the display 700 can be manually adjusted [0073].
Claims 6-7 are met as discussed above for claim 1.
Claim 8 is met as discussed above for claim 5.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al in view of Cooprider, and in further view of Galan Garcia et al, US Patent Application Publication 2020/0139814.
Liu in view of Cooproider fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the pillar including a trim piece covering at least part of the pillar, and the trim piece includes a layer of material that covers the display, and wherein the display when illuminated is visible through the layer of material”. In an analogous art, Galan Garcia teaches this feature. Specifically, the reference teaches a composite structure 10 (a trim piece) having at least a translucent cover layer and a display layer [0014]. The composite structure may be coupled to various surfaces of the interior of a vehicle [0019] including a pillar [0103, 0199], such that illumination from the display at the exterior surface of the composite structure may comprise visible light transmitted through the functional layer and through the translucent cover. It is noted that the composite structure 10 may display vehicle camera information (Figure 8D, [0103, 0218]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu with the teachings of Galan Garcia in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing and integrated composite structure including a cover/exterior surface [0006].
Claim(s) 9, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0331628 in view of Galan Garcia et al, US Patent Application Publication 2020/0139814.
As to claim 9, Liu et al disclose an A-pillar display device as follows: A vehicle display system (Figures 1 and 3), comprising: a camera having a first captured field of view that extends at least partially outward from an exterior of a vehicle ([0012-0015], the first exterior camera 201 is mounted on the A-pillar on the outside of the vehicle or alternatively on the side-view mirror; the first exterior camera acquires a scene outside the vehicle based on the visual field data corresponding to a first interior camera 203 which collects facial images of the driver); a display mounted on a pillar within an interior of the vehicle(first display 201); and a controller coupled to the camera and the display to a first displayed field of view on the display (first display 201), wherein the first displayed field of view is at least part of the first captured field of view and the first displayed field of view is adjusted as a function of a viewing angle of an occupant of the vehicle relative to the display. ([0013], the data processing device is configured to adjust a first shooting angle of the first interior camera 203…according to head twisting data, adjust a second shooting angle of the first exterior camera 201… according to the visual field data, and adjust a display angle of the A-pillar; [0022], based on the target driving data 204 the display angle of the A-pillar is adjusted, the driving data may include the height, body shape, and position of the human eye during normal driving corresponding to facial images in a database; consequently, Liu discloses adjusting the display field of view according to head twisting data (that is, movement of the driver’s head during driving resulting in different blind spots caused by the A-pillar) and target driving data including the position of the human eye during normal driving.
Liu fails to explicitly disclose “the pillar including a trim piece covering at least part of the pillar, and the trim piece including a layer of material that at least partially covers the display”. In an analogous art, Galan Garcia teaches this feature. Specifically, the reference teaches a composite structure 10 (a trim piece) having at least a translucent cover layer and a display layer [0014]. The composite structure may be coupled to various surfaces of the interior of a vehicle [0019] including a pillar [0103, 0199], such that illumination from the display at the exterior surface of the composite structure may comprise visible light transmitted through the functional layer and through the translucent cover. It is noted that the composite structure 10 may display vehicle camera information (Figure 8D, [0103, 0218]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu with the teachings of Galan Garcia in order to provide an aesthetically pleasing and integrated composite structure including a cover/exterior surface [0006].
As to claim 16, Liu discloses: The system of claim 9, further comprising an interior camera facing the interior of the vehicle, wherein the interior camera is configured to detect a position of at least part of a vehicle occupant relative to the pillar. ([0012-0015] a first interior camera 203 which collects facial images of the driver; the data processing device is configured to adjust a first shooting angle of the first interior camera 203…according to head twisting data)
As to claim 18, Liu discloses: The system of claim 17, wherein the controller adjusts the first displayed field of view to include an area that is outboard of the pillar relative to the occupant and the viewing angle, wherein the area that is outboard of the pillar is obscured by the pillar from direct viewing by the occupant. (as discussed above; [0033])
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al in view of Galan Garcia et al, and in further view of Jung et al, US Patent Application Publication 2022/0185182.
As to claim 10, “The system of claim 9, further comprising a seat, wherein the viewing angle is determined as a function of a position of the seat of the vehicle”, as discussed above the shooting angle of the first exterior camera 201 is adjusted according to visual field data and the display angle of the A-pillar is adjusted based on target driving data 204 which may include height, body shape, and position of the human eye during normal driving. Thus, viewing angle is determined as a function of the position of the body and eyes of the driver. However, Liu does not explicitly disclose that “viewing angle is determined as a function of the position of the seat of the vehicle”. However, in analogous art Jung et al disclose a see-through display for a vehicle (Figures 1, 2A-C and 4) where eye position can be determined based on the position of the driver’s seat. Jung indicates that the position of the eye may be specified relative to the seat position, and the seat position can be detected and used to calculate the eye position [0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu with the teachings of Jung as a simpler method of determining eye position and the viewing angle therefrom.
Claims 11 and 12 are met as discussed above.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al in view of Galan Garcia et al and Jung et al, and in further view of Cooprider, US Patent Application Publication 2024/0190348.
As to claim 13, the features of claim 12 by Liu as modified by Jung. The combination fails to disclose “further comprising a second camera coupled to the controller and the display, and the second camera having a second captured field of view wherein the controller is configured to show on the display a second displayed field of view that includes at least part of the second captured field of view”. In analogous art, Cooprider teaches a camera monitoring system (CMS) and driver side A-frame display for a vehicle. Specifically, cameras 20a-d capture images of the exterior of the vehicle including the front, rear, and rearward side views [Figure 1B]. The CMS display is positioned on A-frame 692A and includes among other views a display 688A which is a rearward facing side view configured to replace that of a traditional wing mirror and a rearview display 610 configured to replace a traditional rear-view mirror (Figures 7A-C and [0064-0065]. Figure 8 shows an example display 700 concurrently displaying multiple fields of view, [0071-0072]. Cooprider teaches that mounting the rear-view display adjacent the CMS display maintains the rear-view display within the peripheral vision of the vehicle operator such that they are not required to alter their gaze while driving, [0066]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu with the teachings of Cooprider in order to replace mirrors and minimize the necessity to alter one’s gaze while driving.
Claim 14 is met as discussed above for claim 13.
As to claim 15, as indicated above in the rejection of claim 9, Liu discloses adjusting a display angle of the A-pillar based on the target driving data 204 which may include the height, body shape, and position of the human eye during normal driving corresponding to facial images in a database [0013, 0022]. Liu therefore discloses that the orientation of the fields of view displayed are configurable by a vehicle occupant, as claimed. Alternatively, Cooprider teaches that the positioning of the borders and/or regions of the display 700 can be manually adjusted [0073].
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al in view of Galan Garcia et al and in further view of Cooprider, US Patent Application Publication 2024/0190348.
As to claim 19, Liu in view of Galan Garciafails to disclose “a second camera having a second captured field of view and a second displayed field of view wherein the first displayed field of view and the second displayed field of view are shown concurrently on separate portions of the display”. In analogous art, Cooprider teaches a camera monitoring system (CMS) and driver side A-frame display for a vehicle. Specifically, cameras 20a-d capture images of the exterior of the vehicle including the front, rear, and rearward side views [Figure 1B]. The CMS display is positioned on A-frame 692A and includes among other views a display 688A which is a rearward facing side view configured to replace that of a traditional wing mirror and a rearview display 610 configured to replace a traditional rear-view mirror (Figures 7A-C and [0064-0065]. Figure 8 shows an example display 700 concurrently displaying multiple fields of view, [0071-0072]. Cooprider teaches that mounting the rear-view display adjacent the CMS display maintains the rear-view display within the peripheral vision of the vehicle operator such that they are not required to alter their gaze while driving, [0066]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Liu with the teachings of Cooprider in order to replace mirrors and minimize the necessity to alter one’s gaze while driving.
As to claim 20, Cooprider teaches that the positioning of the borders and/or regions of the display 700 can be manually adjusted [0073].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that the construction and arrangement of claim 1 is such that by adjusting the captured field of view from the camera based on the approximated position of the vehicle occupant, a portion of the field of view that is typically obscured by the pillar is displayed, allowing the driver to see the area hidden by the pillar, and as a result improving driver visibility. It is further argued that Cooprider teaches the opposite by teaching a display that is larger than the pillar and so obscures more of the driver’s vision in the area of the pillar, whereas Liu is entirely directed to reducing the blind spot of the A-pillar. In response, the examiner agrees that Lui is directed to reducing the blind spot of the A-pillar, but as can be seen by the relationship between the display 202 and A-pillar 204 in Figure 1, a portion of the blind spot nevertheless remains about the periphery of the display. Liu is fundamentally directed to improving driver visibility of the A-pillar blind spot region.
Cooprider similarly functions to improve the visibility of blind spot regions about the vehicle, such as that captured by side rearward facing cameras, through the camera monitoring system (CMS) displays. Adding an integrated display to the A-pillar display of Liu incorporating an additional blind spot view would complement rather than contradict the teachings of Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would seek to combine Cooprider with Liu because it would enhance driver visibility by providing views of at least the side rearward blindspot regions in addition to the A-pillar blind spot regions disclosed in Liu. In so doing, the modification would replace mirrors and minimize the necessity to alter one’s gaze while driving.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-16 and 18-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOHN W MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 4:00 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, Collen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights