DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an amendment filed 10/27/2025, wherein claims 1-15 are pending and being examined. 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 Arguments
The objection of claim 13 is withdrawn in light of the most recent claim amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below.
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, 2, and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friebe et al. (US 2020/0090307) (hereinafter Friebe) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 7,161,616) (hereinafter Okamoto).
In regard to claim 1, Friebe discloses method for generating a surround view of the surroundings of a motor vehicle [¶0005; surround view system for a vehicle is provided], wherein the motor vehicle has a vehicle body [Fig.1; vehicle including a vehicle body] and components which can move relative to the vehicle body [Fig.1; movable part (14). ¶0016; movable part can be a wheel of the vehicle], the method comprising:
generating a first mask which represents a silhouette of the vehicle body projected onto a background [¶0040; image 19 of the vehicle 1 has an external contour 20 which corresponds to the actual external contour 16 of the vehicle 1. Fig.3; external contour of the vehicle];
generating a second mask which represents a silhouette of the movable components of the motor vehicle projected onto the background in a current state [Fig.3, Fig.4; silhouette of movable part (14) located on display images];
generating a third mask of the motor vehicle by combining the first mask with the second mask [¶0007; parts which produce an increase in this external contour, if the parts are moving in a specific direction. ¶0039; external contour 16 of the vehicle 1 observed from a bird's eye view to be increased. ¶0042. Fig.4]; and
generating the surround view of the surroundings of the motor vehicle on the basis of camera images of vehicle cameras of the motor vehicle [¶0035-¶0036; processor 10 can be communicatively connected to the four cameras 2 to 5 and can in particular receive image data from the four cameras 2 to 5 or access the image data] using the third mask of the motor vehicle [¶0037; appropriate image data can in particular be combined by means of the processor 10 into a two-dimensional or three-dimensional vehicle all-round image 12, 13 (cf. FIGS. 3 and 4) and can be displayed on the monitor 11. Fig.4].
Friebe does not explicitly disclose the first mask being generated by analyzing images obtained from multiple cameras deployed at different locations at the motor vehicle. However Okamoto discloses,
generating a first mask which represents a silhouette of the vehicle body projected onto a background [Col 22, lines 42-54; vehicle region where the vehicle is located and a blind spot region around the vehicle are shown. Col 23, lines 14-29], the first mask being generated by analyzing images obtained from multiple cameras deployed at different locations at the motor vehicle [Fig.37; mask data representing the projection region of the vehicle determined from each image among multiple cameras. Fig.6A through Fig.6E; multiple camera images processed to produce mask region where vehicle is located. Col 7, line 52 through Col 7, line 18; image processing part 2 refers to pixel data C1 of the coordinates (340, 121) of the image captured by the camera 1… pixel data C2 of the image captured by the camera 2… region R4 other than the three regions R1 to R3 corresponding to the cameras is not covered by the cameras, or a blind spot that is hidden by the vehicle].
Okamoto discloses processing camera images to produce a bird's eye image. Pixel data of captured camera images are processed to determine where the vehicle is located in each image, wherein a mask area is generated. In the bird's eye view image, the mask area is used to represent the shape of the vehicle within the environment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method disclosed by Friebe with the generating a region from processing multiple camera images as disclosed by Okamoto in order to provide improved determination of a blind spot region in a vehicle's environment [Okamoto Abstract, Col 2, lines 59-67, Col 3, lines 40-61]. As disclosed by Okamoto, using the image data from multiple cameras allows for accurate representation of a vehicle blind spot region for a displayed bird's eye view image.
In regard to claim 2, Friebe in view of Okamoto discloses the method according to claim 1. Friebe further discloses,
wherein the movable components comprise at least one deflectable wheel of the motor vehicle [¶0016], and wherein the second mask is determined as a function of a current steering angle of the motor vehicle [¶0016, ¶0038-¶0039, ¶0042].
In regard to claim 10, Friebe in view of Okamoto discloses the method according to claim 1. Friebe further discloses,
wherein the surround view of the surroundings of the motor vehicle is generated on the basis of the camera images generated by the vehicle cameras, wherein no camera data of the camera images are inserted into regions masked by the third mask of the motor vehicle [¶0040-¶0043, Fig.3, Fig.4].
In regard to claim 11, Friebe in view of Okamoto discloses the method according to claim 1. Friebe further discloses,
wherein the surround view of the surroundings of the motor vehicle is a bowl view of the surroundings of the motor vehicle or a top view of the surroundings of the motor vehicle [¶0039-¶0040, Fig.3, Fig.4].
In regard to claim 12, Friebe in view of Okamoto discloses the method according to claim 1. Friebe further discloses,
further comprising displaying the generated surround view of the surroundings of the motor vehicle on a display device of the motor vehicle [¶0035-¶0037, Fig.3, Fig.4].
In regard to claim 13, this claim is drawn to a device corresponding to the method of claim 1, wherein claim 13 contains the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same basis. Furthermore, Friebe discloses implementing the system by an interface and at least one processor in at least ¶0028-¶0029 and ¶0038.
In regard to claim 14, Friebe in view of Okamoto discloses a motor vehicle having the device according to claim 13 [see the rejection of claim 1 and claim 13] for generating the surround view of the surroundings of the motor vehicle [Friebe Fig.1].
In regard to claim 15, Friebe in view of Okamoto discloses the motor vehicle according to claim 14. Friebe further discloses,
comprising a display device which is configured to display the generated surround view of the surroundings of the motor vehicle [¶0035, ¶0037].
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friebe (US 2020/0090307) in view of Okamoto (US 7,161,616) in view of Kurnaz et al. (US 2020/0023772) (hereinafter Kurnaz).
In regard to claim 3, Friebe in view of Okamoto discloses the method according to claim 2. Friebe further discloses,
wherein a virtual wheel is generated for the at least one wheel of the motor vehicle as a function of the current steering angle [0038-¶0039]… of a vehicle camera detecting the at least one deflectable wheel of the motor vehicle, and wherein the virtual wheel is projected onto the background in order to generate the silhouette of the at least one deflectable wheel of the motor vehicle projected onto the background [Fig.3, Fig.4, ¶0035-¶0037].
Neither Friebe nor Okamoto explicitly disclose wherein a virtual wheel is generated for the at least one wheel of the motor vehicle as a function of the current steering angle in a vehicle camera coordinate system of a vehicle camera detecting the at least one deflectable wheel of the motor vehicle, and wherein the virtual wheel is projected onto the background in the vehicle camera coordinate system from a viewing angle of the vehicle camera. However Kurnaz discloses,
wherein a virtual wheel is generated for the at least one wheel of the motor vehicle as a function of the current steering angle in a vehicle camera coordinate system of a vehicle camera detecting the at least one deflectable wheel of the motor vehicle [¶0055-¶0056; information received by the processing device may include a steering angle of the vehicle's wheels, or image data output by one or more cameras… graphic representation generated by the processing device may be a representation of the vehicle's wheels as shown in FIG. 2 and indicated generally at 250. ¶0064; wheel ticks (tracking rotation of the wheels, combined with knowledge of the wheel circumference) and image processing. ¶0070; viewing angle, camera position etc. may also be stored in frame store 608, which is shown representing the image and coordinate information. Fig.3; first camera (320) for capturing first image. ¶0042-¶0046], and wherein the virtual wheel is projected onto the background in the vehicle camera coordinate system from a viewing angle of the vehicle camera in order to generate the silhouette of the at least one deflectable wheel of the motor vehicle projected onto the background [Fig.2; display image from a viewing angle of the first camera includes silhouette of wheel projected onto background. ¶0051; graphical representation of at least one component of the vehicle having one or more characteristics based on the information associated with the vehicle, and a graphical representation of the image data. ¶0010-¶0015, ¶0019, ¶0075, ¶0080, ¶0085].
Kurnaz discloses capturing images and generating display image such that wheel icons are overlaid thereon, similar to Friebe. As shown in Fig.2, Fig.3, and as cited to above, the generated display image may be a first image corresponding to the viewing angle of a first camera with a virtual wheel projected thereon at an appropriate position.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Friebe in view of Okamoto with the viewing angle disclosed by Kurnaz in order to provide an improved forward view of the vehicle from a natural viewpoint [Kurnaz ¶0002-¶0005, ¶0059-¶0065].
In regard to claim 4, Friebe in view of Okamoto in view of Kurnaz discloses the method according to claim 3. Friebe in view of Okamoto in view of Kurnaz further discloses,
wherein the virtual wheel is further generated as a function of dimensions and a position of the at least one wheel of the motor vehicle [Friebe ¶0016, ¶0038. Kurnaz ¶0048, ¶0055, ¶0063-¶0064].
See claim 3 for motivation to combine.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friebe (US 2020/0090307) in view of Okamoto (US 7,161,616) in view of Kurnaz (US 2020/0023772) in view of Kida et al. (US 2022/0161718) (hereinafter Kida)
In regard to claim 5, Friebe in view of Okamoto in view of Kurnaz discloses the method according to claim 3. Neither Friebe nor Okamoto nor Kurnaz explicitly disclose, wherein the virtual wheel is modeled by a cylinder. However Kida discloses,
wherein the virtual wheel is modeled by a cylinder [¶0097; a tire model image Ptm, a body model image Pbm, and the like. ¶0088; 3D tire model is a 3D model of the tire and is set to be semi-transparent as a whole. Fig.8; tire is modeled by a cylinder].
Friebe and Kurnaz both disclose modelling wheels and that the display environment may be either two-dimensional or three-dimensional. However, as neither Friebe nor Kurnaz explicitly disclose a cylinder representing the wheel, Kida is relied upon.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Friebe in view of Okamoto in view of Kurnaz with the cylinder model disclosed by Kida in order to provide a three-dimensional representation that conveys tire position clearly to an operator [Kida ¶0088-¶0091, ¶0097].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 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.
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 REBECCA A VOLENTINE whose telephone number is (571)270-7261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Joe Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/REBECCA A VOLENTINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483 January 16, 2026