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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) 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.
The newly amended limitations have been rejected using newly applied prior art as noted below in the rejection.
The independent claims have been amended to include the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
59
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Based upon an updated the search the examiner notes, the features of storing color vision impairment information is known as evidenced by the following prior art.
US 20220366131 (para 118, 133)
US 20190172234 (para 4, 5)
US 20190095729 (para 61, 145)
US 20110209023 (para 90, 118, Fig 17) US 11,935,414, (full text paras 23, 25, 27-28)
US 20060061586 (para 24, 26)
US 20230169734 (para 20, 24-25)
The examiner has updated the rejection by the reliance of
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, 3-8, 11 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machado et al., US 2024/0259519, Fujisawa et al., US 2018/0086346, Sung, US 2017/0060234 in view of Brulle-Drews et al., US 20060061586 in view of Alexander et al., US 20230169734.
PNG
media_image2.png
409
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claimed camera sensor…cameras 3a/b/c/d (Fig 1) around vehicle (para 3-4, 9, 25, 31-32)
b-c)The claimed controller…controller 2 (Fig 1, para 9, 25, 31-32) where the system detects objects (para 02, 05, 22-24, 31 and 35).
d) the claim change a color of an object… including color modification (para 006, 16-21), 24, 26, 34, 35) in order to the improve the display for those with impaired color perception.
The examiner notes Machado does not explicitly recite the detection of “moving” objects, although this is conventional in the field of vehicle displays to ensure the drive/vehicle is aware of its surroundings as evidenced by Fujisawa, (para 49-53, 203) such as moving pedestrians, animals, vehicles etc.…from stationary objects to prevent any potential risks/safety.
The motivation for implementing the moving object detection as taught by Fujisawa with Machado would provide the advantages as noted above, to ensure a safe vehicle operation by informing/notifying the user/system of such information (including moving objects) which may be as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding f) from previous claim 2 (now canceled):
PNG
media_image3.png
75
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Machado discloses the surround-view cameras may be arrange on the side mirrors (para 32) as well as electronic mirror replacement systems (para 04)
Fujisawa discloses the control units extracts the face direction of the driver, the visual line and the eyes of the driver (para 69, 95, 170) and direction of the vehicle.
However Machado/Fujisawa do not explicitly recite “digital side mirror”, or the turn signal as claimed.
Regarding the turn signal…the examiner evidences Sung, (para 114) which discloses the system which is configured to process and display information based upon the direction of the vehicle and the gaze/gesture of the driver (para 10, 159, 185, 190-194, 208-211, 217-221, 228, 231-232, 240, 243-245, 262, 263, 277-279, 285, 294-296, 302-303).
The motivation to modify the above combination with Sung would provide the conventional capability to provide/display information to the driver/vehicle regarding the drivers gaze to ensure the driver/vehicle are notified (are aware) of the vehicle surroundings to ensure a safe vehicle operation as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding the DSM, the examiner notes the combination above does not explicitly disclose the digital side mirror, however:
Machado discloses the cameras may be mounted on the side mirrors (32) as well as electronic mirror replacement systems (para 04);
Sung discloses the side mirrors where the camera may be disposed in the case or on the exterior (para 127-128).
The examiner notes the term digital side mirror is a well-known item in vehicles where traditional side mirrors were replaced with cameras to provide a field of view which allowed the driver/vehicle to see a greater field of view (depending upon the lens of the camera), thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such, the motivation to modify the above combination with DSM would allow the vehicles to use a known/replaceable device which allows the vehicle/user to view/see better surrounding the vehicle, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding the newly added limitation: (e)
PNG
media_image4.png
61
612
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes Machado et al, discloses it is known that the display of color images can be selectively modified based upon a user’s profile.
Additionally the examiner evidences Brulle-Drews et al., US 20060061586, which discloses that color vision profiles for users of a vehicle may be stored (para 11, 18, 24, 26-27, 30-31, 36-37 and 39-41) and adjust the colors for display based upon the color vision profile. Meeting the based on perceptible and imperceptible colors.
The motivation to modify combination above with Brulle-Drews would provide the vehicle and driver(s) the ability to modify displayed information to be visually perceptible to the driver based upon the stored profile, thus ensuring the drivers sees the displayed information and thus ensuring a safe vehicle operation based upon color visibility enhanced for the driver.
The examiner notes that Brulle-Drews does not explicitly recite changing the color of an object (moving or otherwise, as noted above Fujisawa, 49-50-53, 86, 203) although the examiner notes such features as known, as evidenced by Alexander et al., US 20230169734 (para 20, 24-25) which includes a user profile (para 24, 25, 27, 28, 35-36, 38-39) and can change the specific colors of objects to colors that can be seen by the user (vehicle (para 20).
The motivation to modify the above combination with Alexander, would provide the vehicle and driver(s) the ability to modify objects (moving or otherwise) information to be visually perceptible to the driver based upon the stored profile, thus ensuring the drivers sees the displayed information via color correction of such objects based upon any visual impairment which is stored and thus ensuring a safe vehicle operation based upon color visibility enhanced for the driver.
In considering claim 3,
As noted above in claim 1, object detection is performed to notify/warn the driver/vehicle of its surroundings including motion and stationary objects.
Machado does not explicitly recite “the gaze” of the driver.
Regarding the gaze, the examiner notes Machado does not recite such conventional feature which is done to ensure a safe vehicle operation and to provide the driver the information based upon their head/eyes/gaze are positioned and the path of the vehicle.
Fujisawa discloses the vehicle direction (para 68) and face direction of the driver (para 69)
The examiner evidences such convention by incorporating Sung, which disclose the gaze and gesture of the driver is used to provide information/display regarding such (para 114 and para 7-10, 62, 69, 76, 87-89, 11, 112-114, 119, 149-159, 173, 177, 185, 190-194, 208-211, 217-221, 228, 231-233, 235, 240, 243-245, 261-263,, 273, 277-279, 285, 287-288, 294, 296, 302-303.
The motivation to incorporate such conventional features into Machado/Fujisawa would provide the driver information regarding the vehicle surroundings and notify/warn the driver of potential objects in the direction of travel and/or where they are looking, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 4,
The examiner notes the above combination (via Fujisawa) provides moving and stationary object detection.
The combination does not explicitly recite when it rains, snows or fogs (during various types of weather), however the examiner notes cameras notably in vehicle have an operating environment characteristics where they can capture images and perform processing during various weather types, thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such, to provide a safe vehicle operation, thus whether it’s raining or not, snowing or not or foggy or not, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivation to ensure the vehicle cameras operated during various weather types as, being an obvious implementation to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 5,
The combination above does not disclose detecting a moving object when illuminance around the vehicle does not exceed a threshold.
However the examiner notes vehicles are operated in the day (illumination typically large) and night (illumination typically low) where the vehicles processes of object detection would be performed (the claim does not state “only” when the illuminance does not exceed), thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding operating at day and/or night (does not exceed a threshold) and a ambient/illumination sensor which detects the amount of light surround the vehicle as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 6,
Machado discloses that is it known to modify the color images based upon a user’s profile (para 006)
Thus the combination would be motivated to ensure drivers and their known profiles would be activated/started when operating the vehicle, thus being an obvious implementation to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, notable to ensure a safe vehicle operation by adjusting the displays for visual impairments as taught by the combination.
In considering claim 7,
Machado discloses establishing borders or edges or transitions between colors and/or contrast with people with visual impairment (para 09) which includes (para 06) known color adjustments (para 35) to ensure the visually impaired driver sees the objects.
In considering claim 8,
Machado discloses the objects and/or edges may be established using the differential image including large areas (para 22, 24, 35) to ensure the driver is aware of such objects and can visually see them.
In considering claim 11,
Refer to claim 1.
In considering claim 13,
Refer to claim 3.
In considering claim 14,
The examiner notes Machado/Fujisawa do not disclose weather related information which is conventional features in vehicles as evidenced by
Sung, (para 53, 55, 94, 143, and 174).
The examiner notes the combination as noted above in claim 4 detects objects, but does not recite the weather with regard to the object detection, where the examiner notes the claim does not state only detect objects based upon rain, snow or fog.
The combination does not explicitly recite when it rains, snows or fogs (during various types of weather), however the examiner notes cameras notably in vehicle have an operating environment characteristics where they can capture images and perform processing during various weather types, additionally vehicle may include sensors pertains to such events (rain, fog, snow etc..) to either activate the wipers/control etc.… thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such, to provide a safe vehicle operation, thus whether it’s raining or not, snowing or not or foggy or not, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivation to ensure the vehicle cameras operated during various weather types as, being an obvious implementation to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 15,
Refer to claim 5.
In considering claim 16,
Refer to claim 6.
In considering claim 17,
Refer to claim 7.
In considering claim 18,
Refer to claim 8.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machado et al., US 2024/0259519, Fujisawa et al., US 2018/0086346, Sung, US 2017/0060234, Brulle-Drews et al., US 20060061586 in view of Alexander et al., US 20230169734 in view of Li et al., US 10,242,567.
In considering claim 9,
As noted above in claims 7-8, Machado discloses adjusting the color of the objects to ensure a visually impaired user can see the objects.
However, the combination does not explicitly recite the conventional features of displaying the Text (claim 8) or icon (graphic, claim 9) as claimed. The examiner incorporates Li which discloses such:
PNG
media_image5.png
318
619
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Li pertains to traffic lights which are displayed on the visually impaired display of the driver, where the system determines the color of the light and displays text and graphics to ensure the visually impaired driver understands/see the traffic signal condition/color, thus the modification to incorporate the features of displaying the text of the color and/or graphics (icon), whether with regard to the traffic lights or objects around the vehicle provides the advantages as noted above (to provide information to visually impaired) to ensure a safe vehicle operation, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
In considering claim 10,
Refer to claim 9 (icon/graphic).
In considering claim 19,
Refer to claim 9.
In considering claim 20,
Refer to claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited references on attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422