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 .
Claim Status
Claims 4, 6-7 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the Remarks:
(Claim 1) Windeler does not teach or suggest: “determine a plurality of available view paths … associated with the vehicle sensor suite.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Windeler determines the variety of view paths via the available camera angles located at different pillars, much the same way the instant application determines available view paths based on the available sensors located in different positions.
(Claim 1) Windeler does not teach or suggest “determine a vehicle trajectory and a desired field of view … based on … the driver's head movement or the driver's eye movement,” and does not teach or suggest “select an optimal view path from the plurality of available view paths, based on the vehicle trajectory and the desired field of view.” Examiner notes that it appears the Applicant modified the claim limitations in the arguments and that the full limitations are, “determine a vehicle trajectory and a desired field of view responsive to determining that the driver's field of view is obstructed, wherein the desired field of view is determined based on at least one of the driver's head movement or the driver's eye movement; select an optimal view path from the plurality of available view paths, based on the vehicle trajectory and the desired field of view. It appears that Windeler is not relied upon to teach the contested limitations. See the rejection below or Nix (US 2019/0164430 A1), specifically, ¶55.
(Claim 1) Windeler does not teach or suggest, “select the vehicle sensor from the vehicle sensor suite based on the selection of the optimal view path,” and Windeler’s DMS tracks gaze to determine where the driver is looking – not to determine a desired field of view; does not evaluate multiple view paths or consider vehicle trajectory. Examiner disagrees as Windeler has multiple sensors facing in different directions and evaluates head movements to determine which view path is optimal. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the direction the driver is looking would be the desired field of view, otherwise the driver would not be looking in that direction. Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite something along the lines of a suggested field of view rather than desired field of view which appears to be more in line with what the application is trying to claim. Please note any amendments must be fully supported by the specification.
(Claim 5) Yoshizaki does not teach determining a plurality of available view paths comprising an interior camera vision based view path, an exterior camera vision based view path, and a radar sensor or lidar sensor based view path. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the sensors of Yoshizaki is merely relied upon to teach the types of sensors available and modifying the base structure of Windeler in view of Nix. Further, the way the claim limitation is written only a LIDAR system is required since the claim states, “an interior camera vision based view path, an exterior camera vision based view path, and a radar sensor OR lidar sensor based view path.” (emphasis added) Therefore either the system can have interior/exterior cameras and a radar in one embodiment or a LIDAR in a separate embodiment.
(Claim 11) Yoshizaki does not disclose, “user inputs indicating that the driver’s field of view is obstructed” Examiner respectfully disagrees as the user input of Yoshizaki could reasonably be interpreted as an action a user would perform when their view is obstructed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 12, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windeler (US 2022/0363194 A1) hereinafter Windeler and Nix (US 2019/0164430 A1) hereinafter Nix.
Claim 1:
Windeler discloses a vehicle comprising: an image-based detection unit configured to capture first inputs associated with a driver’s field of view [Item 18; ¶14; the driver's head and eye direction is an input associated with the driver's field of view]; a vehicle sensor suite configured to capture second inputs associated with a geographical area that is obstructed from the driver field of view [Items 12, 24; ¶¶10, 12, 15]; a processor communicatively coupled with the detection unit and the vehicle sensor suite, wherein the processor is configured to: obtain the first inputs from the image-based detection unit; determine that a driver is distressed or a driver movement is greater than a predefined movement threshold based on the first inputs; determine that the driver’s field of view is obstructed responsive to determining that the driver is distressed or the driver movement is greater than the predefined movement threshold [¶14; the driver's head in a specific position is associated with being distressed and the view must be obstructed because they are looking directly at the a-pillar]; obtain the second inputs associated with the geographical area from a vehicle sensor associated with the vehicle sensor suite, responsive to determining that the driver’s field of view is obstructed, wherein the second inputs comprise real-time images of the geographical area [¶¶11-15]; and wherein to obtain the second inputs the processor is configured to: determine a plurality of available view paths to capture the second inputs associated with the geographical area, wherein the plurality of available view paths are associated with the vehicle sensor suite [¶¶12-14]; wherein the desired field of view is determined based on at least one of the driver's head movement or the driver's eye movement [¶¶12-14]; select the vehicle sensor from the vehicle sensor suite based on the selection of the optimal view path [¶¶12-14]; output the real-time images on a display screen in the vehicle [¶¶11-15].
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose determine a vehicle trajectory and a desired field of view responsive to determining that the driver's field of view is obstructed, select an optimal view path from the plurality of available view paths, based on the vehicle trajectory and the desired field of view.
However, Nix does disclose determine a vehicle trajectory and a desired field of view responsive to determining that the driver's field of view is obstructed, select an optimal view path from the plurality of available view paths, based on the vehicle trajectory and the desired field of view [¶55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the detection unit of Windeler with the telematics of Nix to provide communication protocols between the vehicle and other entities.
Claim 3:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler also discloses wherein the real-time images comprise camera views or augmented reality-based rendering [¶¶11-15].
Claim 10:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler also discloses wherein the driver’s movement comprises at least one of a driver’s head movement or a driver’s eye movement [¶14].
Claim 12:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the image-based detection unit comprises a vehicle telematics control unit configured to capture the first inputs from other vehicles using a Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication, a Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communication, or a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication.
However, Nix does disclose wherein the image-based detection unit comprises a vehicle telematics control unit configured to capture the first inputs from other vehicles using a Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) communication, a Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communication, or a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication. [¶¶40-46]
Claim 18:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler also discloses wherein the display screen comprises a heads-up display (HUD), a panoramic display, or a center stack display [¶31].
Claim 19:
Windeler discloses a method comprising: obtaining, by a processor, first inputs from a detection unit configured to capture first inputs associated with a driver’s field of view [18; ¶9]; determining, by the processor, that a driver is distressed or a driver movement is greater than a predefined movement threshold based on the first inputs; determining, by the processor, that the driver’s field of view is obstructed responsive to determining that the driver is distressed or the driver movement is greater than the predefined movement threshold [¶14; the driver's head in a specific position is associated with being distressed and the view must be obstructed because they are looking directly at the a-pillar]; obtaining, by the processor, second inputs associated with a geographical area from a vehicle sensor associated with a vehicle sensor suite, responsive to determining that the driver’s field of view is obstructed, wherein the second inputs comprise real-time images of the geographical area, and wherein the vehicle sensor suite is configured to capture the second inputs associated with the geographical area that is obstructed from the driver field of view [¶¶11-15]; and wherein obtaining the second inputs comprises: determining, by the processor, a plurality of available view paths to capture the second inputs associated with the geographical area, wherein the plurality of available view paths are associated with the vehicle sensor suite; determining, by the processor, a vehicle trajectory and a desired field of view responsive to determining that the driver's field of view is obstructed, wherein the desired field of view is determined based on at least one of the driver's head movement or the driver's eye movement [¶¶12-14]; selecting, by the processor, the vehicle sensor from the vehicle sensor suite based on the selection of the optimal view path [¶¶12-14]; wherein obtaining the second inputs comprises: determining, by the processor, a plurality of available view paths to capture the second inputs associated with the geographical area, wherein the plurality of available view paths are associated with the vehicle sensor suite [¶¶12-14]; wherein the desired field of view is determined based on at least one of the driver's head movement or the driver's eye movement [¶¶12-14]; selecting, by the processor, the vehicle sensor from the vehicle sensor suite based on the selection of the optimal view path [¶¶12-14]; and outputting, by the processor, the real-time images on a display screen in a vehicle [¶¶11-15].
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose determining, by the processor, a vehicle trajectory and a desired field of view responsive to determining that the driver's field of view is obstructed, selecting, by the processor, an optimal view path from the plurality of available view paths based on the vehicle trajectory and the desired field of view.
However, Nix does disclose determining, by the processor, a vehicle trajectory and a desired field of view responsive to determining that the driver's field of view is obstructed, selecting, by the processor, an optimal view path from the plurality of available view paths based on the vehicle trajectory and the desired field of view [¶55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the detection unit of Windeler with the telematics of Nix to provide communication protocols between the vehicle and other entities.
Claim 20:
Windeler discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [¶10] having instructions stored thereupon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: obtain first inputs from an image-based detection unit configured to capture first inputs associated with a driver’s field of view [Item 18; ¶14; the driver's head and eye direction is an input associated with the driver's field of view]; determine that a driver is distressed or a driver movement is greater than a predefined movement threshold based on the first inputs; determine that the driver’s field of view is obstructed responsive to determining that the driver is distressed or the driver movement is greater than a predefined movement threshold [¶14; the driver's head in a specific position is associated with being distressed and the view must be obstructed because they are looking directly at the a-pillar]; obtain second inputs associated with a geographical area from a vehicle sensor associated with a vehicle sensor suite [Items 12, 24; ¶¶10, 12, 15], responsive to determining that the driver’s field of view is obstructed, wherein the second inputs comprise real-time images of the geographical area, and wherein the vehicle sensor suite is configured to capture the second inputs associated with the geographical area that is obstructed from the driver field of view [¶¶11-15]; and wherein to obtain the second inputs, the instructions cause the processor to: determine a plurality of available view paths to capture the second inputs associated with the geographical area, wherein the plurality of available view paths is associated with the vehicle sensor suite [¶¶12-14]; wherein the desired field of view is determined based on at least one of the driver's head movement or the driver's eye movement [¶¶12-14]; select the vehicle sensor from the vehicle sensor suite based on the selection of the optimal view path [¶¶12-14]; output the real-time images on a display screen in a vehicle [¶¶11-15].
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose determine a vehicle trajectory and a desired field of view responsive to determining that the driver's field of view is obstructed, selecting, by the processor, an optimal view path from the plurality of available view paths based on the vehicle trajectory and the desired field of view.
However, Nix does disclose determine a vehicle trajectory and a desired field of view responsive to determining that the driver's field of view is obstructed, selecting, by the processor, an optimal view path from the plurality of available view paths based on the vehicle trajectory and the desired field of view [¶55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the detection unit of Windeler with the telematics of Nix to provide communication protocols between the vehicle and other entities.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windeler and Nix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshizaki et al. (US 2020/0238906 A1) hereinafter Yoshizaki.
Claim 5:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of available view paths comprises: an interior camera vision based view path, an exterior camera vision based view path, and a radar sensor or lidar sensor based view path.
However, Yoshizaki does disclose wherein the plurality of available view paths comprises: an interior camera vision based view path, an exterior camera vision based view path, and a radar sensor or lidar sensor based view path. [Fig. 7, Item 706; ¶45]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the detection unit of Windeler and Nix with the camera inputs of Yoshizaki to provide an override in case the system does not determine an obstructed view.
Claim 11:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the image-based detection unit comprises a user input device configured to receive user inputs indicating that the driver’s field of view is obstructed, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the driver’s field of view is obstructed based on the user inputs.
However, Yoshizaki does disclose wherein the image-based detection unit comprises a user input device configured to receive user inputs indicating that the driver’s field of view is obstructed, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the driver’s field of view is obstructed based on the user inputs. [¶53]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the detection unit of Windeler and Nix with the camera inputs of Yoshizaki to provide an override in case the system does not determine an obstructed view.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windeler and Nix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vendrow (US 9,237,307 B1) hereinafter Vendrow.
Claim 8:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to select the optimal view path based on an image quality associated with each available view path of the plurality of available view paths.
However, Vendrow does disclose wherein the processor is further configured to select the optimal view path based on an image quality associated with each available view path of the plurality of available view paths. [col. 17, lines 31-44]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the detection unit of Windeler and Nix with the image quality determination of Vendrow to provide the best possible image clarity thus making it easier for a user to see what is being displayed.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windeler and Nix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raman (US 11,745,663 B1) hereinafter Raman.
Claim 13:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to configured to: obtain information associated with at least one of weather conditions or geofenced data of the geographical area; and determine that the driver’s field of view is obstructed based on the information.
However, Raman does disclose wherein the processor is further configured to configured to: obtain information associated with at least one of weather conditions or geofenced data of the geographical area; and determine that the driver’s field of view is obstructed based on the information. [col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 7]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the detection unit of Windeler and Nix with the rainfall detector of Raman to improve feedback to the ECU if the drivers view is obstructed to further enhance visibility.
Claim 13:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to configured to: obtain information associated with at least one of weather conditions or geofenced data of the geographical area; and determine that the driver’s field of view is obstructed based on the information.
However, Raman does disclose wherein the processor is further configured to configured to: obtain information associated with at least one of weather conditions or geofenced data of the geographical area; and determine that the driver’s field of view is obstructed based on the information. [col. 5, lines 26-62; predetermined ratio]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the detection unit of Windeler and Nix with the obstruction determination of Raman to improve feedback to the ECU if the drivers view is obstructed to further enhance visibility.
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windeler and Nix as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuda (US 2023/0159010 A1) hereinafter Tsuda.
Claim 15:
Windeler and Nix, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the driver’s field of view is obstructed.
However, Tsuda does disclose wherein the processor is further configured to perform a remedial action responsive to determining that the driver’s field of view is obstructed. [¶17]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the detection unit of Windeler and Nix with the remedial action of Tsuda to prevent an accident.
Claim 16:
Windeler, Nix, and Tsuda as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 15.
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the remedial action comprises controlling a vehicle traction.
However, Tsuda does disclose wherein the remedial action comprises controlling a vehicle traction. [¶17, traction is used to slow a vehicle down]
Claim 17:
Windeler, Nix, and Tsuda as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 15.
Windeler doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the remedial action comprises enabling or enhancing a driver assistance feature.
However, Tsuda does disclose wherein the remedial action comprises enabling or enhancing a driver assistance feature. [¶17]
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights