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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every rejection under U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 10/1/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under U.S.C. 103, applicant first argues that “the second mode of Goral is not a discrete mode that is purposefully activated and deactivated by the driver, as in the claimed configuration.” This argument is moot as it is based on the amended claim, not the claim as examined in the office action mailed 10/1/2025, see the updated rejection with the Tschirhart ad Roy references applied.
Further regarding the rejection under 103, applicant alleges that one with ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Goral with Choi and Beuschel, however the characterization that there references would “override this driver-customized adjustment with an adjustment based on optimal mirror position for an average driver having the received driver-selected seat position and received weight” is erroneous as the Goral system does not exclusively disclose the mirror adjustment based on head-tracking. Paragraph [0041] states that “A variant of the above is also useful when multiple drivers of different body dimensions share the same car, since there will be no need to (remember to) manually readjust the mirrors each time the driver changes. Adjustment of mirrors to a new driver may be implemented over a shorter time period, i.e. from when the new driver first starts operating the vehicle, the DMS may detect a new driver/body dimensions and immediately adjust rear view device FOV accordingly.” Here, the Goral reference discloses a mirror setting that occurs before the continuous constant-observation mode and the acute adjustment mode in response to a person leaning- the reference having three modes rather than simply two. In this initial setting, the “body dimensions” are explicitly being used, rather than the identified head for full customization. Here, it would be obvious to any person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention to combine the seat position of Beuschel and driver weight of Choi with Goral to set the mirrors for a new driver. Further, even in the setting mode in which the driver’s face is tracked over time, Goral states at [0051] that “Additional or supplemental modes of the control system may implement prior art features such as monitoring curvature of the road and/or position of driver's seat to derive additional data for determining vantage point.” In other words, it is factually incorrect to allege that seat information such as disclosed in Beuschel and Choi would tach away from the image-only system of Goral, as it is not an image only system in the first place.
Applicant further alleges regarding Claim 6 that the Goral reference fails to disclose the first and second images reflecting a driver-preferred driving position and when a desired view of selected rear view mirror is obtained by the driver respectively, however no rationale is given and the examiner disagrees. The Goral reference plainly discloses both, as it discloses the first mode in which the image captures a driver’s head in the neutral position and a second mode in which the camera sees a driver’s head and face obtaining a desired view of their selected mirror.
This is relevant to the applicant’s assertion regarding Claim 6 that the combination of Goral, Beuschel, and Ninh fail to disclose the limitations of Claim 7. Claim 7 is, in brief, a claim of performing Claim 6 but with a kind of nondescript AI. Goral discloses the claimed steps of Claim 6, but lacks the recitation of an AI performing them, and to a person having ordinary skill in the art Beuschel and Ninh make this obvious- the Beuschel reference as acquiesced by the applicant uses an AI model to determine the mirror setting. Ninh, meanwhile, is not merely using the AI to track the eyes and face in a generic system- it is a mirror setting system as well providing credence for a person to combine with Goral and Beuschel. From here, the applicant makes a piecemeal analysis of the combined references, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The cited section of Ninh may disclose the use of one image, however it need not disclose the first and second images as this is already disclosed in Goral with which it is combined. Taken as a combination, a combination which an person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine in order to improve an automatic mirror-adjustment system using the teachings of other automatic mirror-adjustment systems, the Goral reference is modified by the Beuschel and Ninh systems to incorporate AI into the image-based mirror adjustment.
The applicant’s characterization of a combination of the Goral, Beuschel, and Ninh references is incorrect in the examiner’s view. First, the combination of Goral and Beuschel without Ninh is not applicable as the claim is rejected in view of the three. Finally, the combination of all three is not accurately described by the applicant, which describes a complicated and confused mix of features in order to argue the rejection is too unclear to be valid, resulting in an argument which it itself difficult to parse and properly respond to. The combination of Goral, Beuschel, and Ninh as a while renders the claim 7 as a whole obvious- Goral discloses the system in which a first and second image representing the first mode in which the image captures a driver’s head in the neutral position and a second mode in which the camera sees a driver’s head and face obtaining a desired view of their selected mirror are used to determine a mirror setting, which the combination with the Beuschel reference makes it obvious to use an AI model to calculate the mirror adjustment and output the angles of rotation- the AI as claimed in the claim as written would be obvious in view of this combination being simply a recitation of AI used to determine the mirror position. Combined with these, the Ninh reference would make it obvious to use the images, such as taken by Goral, as the mirror-adjustment AI input. Therefore, making it obvious to combine all three into a system in which an AI processes first and second images of the driver as input to determine the gaze for mirror control, and then use the data to determine the mirror adjustment. As such, the examiner holds the rejection is proper, and maintains it 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.
Claims 1-6, 8 , and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goral (US 20250001936), herein after referred to as Goral, in view of Choi (KR 20220026232), herein after referred to as Choi, Beuschel (DE 102018211835), herein after referred to as Beuschel, Tschirhart (US 20120093358), herein after referred to as Tschirhart, and Roy (US 11048105), herein after referred to as Roy.
Regarding Claim 1, Goral discloses:
a processor, (see at least [0010] “ and at least one processor configured to monitor”)
and instructions stored in a memory of the vehicle that when executed, cause the processor to (see at least [0023] “ a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors,”)
when a driver of the vehicle is seated in a driver's seat of the vehicle: receive a driver-selected seat position (see at least [0051] “monitoring curvature of the road and/or position of driver's seat”)
perform a first adjustment of one or more rear view mirrors of the vehicle (see at least [0041] “Adjustment of mirrors to a new driver may be implemented over a shorter time period, i.e. from when the new driver first starts operating the vehicle, the DMS may detect a new driver/body dimensions and immediately adjust rear view device FOV accordingly.”)
based on the received driver-selected seat position (see at least [0051] “Additional or supplemental modes of the control system may implement prior art features such as monitoring curvature of the road and/or position of driver's seat to derive additional data for determining vantage point.”)
such that each rear view mirror is at a respective default mirror position, (see at least [0041] “Adjustment of mirrors to a new driver may be implemented over a shorter time period, i.e. from when the new driver first starts operating the vehicle, the DMS may detect a new driver/body dimensions and immediately adjust rear view device FOV accordingly.”)
the default mirror positions increasing a size of an unobstructed portion of a rear environment of the driver and/or vehicle for an average driver (see at least [0037] “this implementation helps maintain an optimal adjustment of the mirrors in case the position of the driver gradually changes over time (e.g. when driving over a long distance a driver may gradually slouch more into the driver's seat)." (*Examiner interprets a mirror position meant to provide consistent visibility over a long term as a default mirror position)
activate the automatic mirror adjustment mode to perform a further adjustment of a selected rear view mirror of the one or more rear view mirrors from its default mirror position to a desired position based on a visual input of the driver captured by an in-cabin camera vehicle. (see at least [0046] “the mirror may be adjusted by detecting both a head rotation toward the mirror (because it is assumed a driver is looking at the mirror for driving assistance) and a leaning movement. Detection of one or both of these movements indicates a desire by the driver to obtain a better view/vantage point. Accordingly, upon detection of the behavior, the mirror is temporarily deflected to provide that better view”)
Goral does not explicitly disclose:
and a weight of the driver from sensors of the driver's seat of the vehicle;
and weight,
having the received driver-selected seat position
and received weight;
and in response to receiving user input from the driver including a selection of an automatic mirror adjustment mode of the vehicle by the driver,
wherein the automatic mirror adjustment mode is deactivated when it is determined the driver is not looking at any of the one or more rear view mirrors.
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses:
and a weight of the driver from sensors of the driver's seat of the vehicle; (see at least [0031] “The above sensing unit (100) is installed in the driver's seat where the driver sits, and outputs a sensing value regarding the driver's driving posture. At this time, the sensing unit (100) can output a voltage value corresponding to the weight applied by the driver”)
and weight, (see at least [0031] “At this time, the sensing unit (100) can output a voltage value corresponding to the weight applied by the driver as a sensing value to the driver posture learning unit (300) and the control unit (400)." [0048] "when a driver changes his/her driving posture while driving, the angles of the side mirrors and rearview mirrors can be automatically adjusted accordingly”)
and received weight; (see at least [0031] “At this time, the sensing unit (100) can output a voltage value corresponding to the weight applied by the driver as a sensing value to the driver posture learning unit (300) and the control unit (400)." [0048] "when a driver changes his/her driving posture while driving, the angles of the side mirrors and rearview mirrors can be automatically adjusted accordingly”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to receive a driver’s weight, as taught by Choi to measure a driver’s weight in order to determine a posture for mirror adjustment [0048].
In the same field of endeavor, Beuschel discloses:
having the received driver-selected seat position (see at least [0021] “the neural network takes into account an adjustment position of the seat when determining the adjustment position of the mirror”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to use a received driver-selected seat position to determine mirror adjustment, as taught by Beuschel to use seat position to set mirror position [0021].
In the same field of endeavor, Tschirhart discloses:
and in response to receiving user input from the driver including a selection of an automatic mirror adjustment mode of the vehicle by the driver, (see at least [0031] “the user interface 16 may provide a selective control over the automatic configuration of the vision components 16, 16', 16''. For example, the vision components 16, 16', 16'' may always revert to a default configuration unless the user initiates a vision mode, wherein at least one of the vision components 16, 16', 16'' is automatically configured to the personalized configuration associated with the vision characteristics of the user.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to operate mirror in response to receiving user input from the driver including a selection of an automatic mirror adjustment mode of the vehicle by the driver, as taught by Tschirhart to control a mirror based on the determined eye gaze [0033].
In the same field of endeavor, Roy discloses:
wherein the automatic mirror adjustment mode is deactivated when it is determined the driver is not looking at any of the one or more rear view mirrors. (see at least [Col 13, Ln 50-54] “If the eye-tracking sensor detects that the driver is looking elsewhere, i.e. not at the location of the virtual rearview mirror, then the virtual rearview mirror is deactivated.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to deactivate a rearview mirror control mode when it is determined the driver is not looking at any of the one or more rear view mirrors, as taught by Roy to control a virtual mirror automatically [Col 13].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Goral further discloses:
wherein the one or more rear view mirrors include an inside rear view mirror and a side mirror of the vehicle. (see at least [0038] “ According to FIG. 2A, automatic adjustment of side-view mirror 12 is shown”)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Goral does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the driver-selected seat position includes one or more of a height of the driver's seat, an inclination of the driver's seat, and a horizontal position of the driver's seat.
and wherein the user input to activate the automatic mirror adjustment mode includes user input received via a control on a dashboard of the vehicle and/or via a user interface integrated into the dashboard.
In the same field of endeavor, Beuschel discloses:
wherein the driver-selected seat position includes one or more of a height of the driver's seat, an inclination of the driver's seat, and a horizontal position of the driver's seat. (see at least [0002] “There are many adjustment options, such as seat height, seat inclination," [0021] "if the seat adjustment position is corrected by the user, the artificial neural network can correct the adjustment position of the mirror.") (*Examiner interprets the seat adjustment position as including seat height and inclination as these typical seat adjustments are included as what the reference expressly uses to describe what as seat position may be.)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to use a received driver-selected seat position which position includes one or more of a height of the driver's seat, an inclination of the driver's seat, and a horizontal position of the driver's seat, as taught by Beuschel to use seat position to set mirror position [0021].
In the same field of endeavor, Tschirhart discloses:
and wherein the user input to activate the automatic mirror adjustment mode includes user input received via a control on a dashboard of the vehicle and/or via a user interface integrated into the dashboard. (see at least [Fig. 1] [0031] “the user interface 16 may provide a selective control over the automatic configuration of the vision components 16, 16', 16''. For example, the vision components 16, 16', 16'' may always revert to a default configuration unless the user initiates a vision mode, wherein at least one of the vision components 16, 16', 16'' is automatically configured to the personalized configuration associated with the vision characteristics of the user.)”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to operate mirror in response to receiving user input from the driver including a selection of an automatic mirror adjustment mode of the vehicle by the driver, as taught by Tschirhart to control a mirror based on the determined eye gaze [0033]. Examiner considers it obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to activate the automatic mirror adjustment mode via user input received via a control on a dashboard of the vehicle and/or via a user interface integrated into the dashboard as the dashboard is the well, known, routine and conventional way to activate vehicle controls in all modern automobiles.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 3, and Goral further discloses:
wherein further instructions are stored in the memory (see at least [0021] “ there is provided a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors, implement the foregoing method.”)
Goral does not explicitly disclose:
that when executed, cause the processor to input one or more of the height of the driver's seat, the inclination of the driver's seat, the position of the driver's seat, and the weight of the driver into a first AI model, and receive as an output of the first AI model one or more angles to rotate a mirror of the one or more rear view mirrors around one or more central axes of the mirror to achieve the default mirror positions.
In the same field of endeavor, Beuschel discloses:
that when executed, cause the processor to input one or more of the height of the driver's seat, the inclination of the driver's seat, the position of the driver's seat, and the weight of the driver into a first AI model, and receive as an output of the first AI model one or more angles to rotate the selected rear view mirror of the one or more rear view mirrors around one or more central axes of the selected rear view mirror to achieve the default mirror position for the selected rear view mirror. (see at least [0021] “Preferably, the neural network takes into account an adjustment position of the seat when determining the adjustment position of the mirror. This allows the mirror position to be adjusted to the respective seating position. In a particularly preferred embodiment, if the seat adjustment position is corrected by the user, the artificial neural network can correct the adjustment position of the mirror. This means that even if the seat adjustment position is subsequently corrected, the adjustment position of the mirror in the vehicle is optimally adapted to the user.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to input a received driver-selected seat position into an AI model and receive as output a mirror position, as taught by Beuschel to use seat position to set mirror position by an AI model [0021].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Goral does not explicitly disclose:
receive from the driver a selection of the selected rear view mirror based on an image of a head and face of the driver captured by an in-cabin camera as the driver looks at the selected rear view mirror.
In the same field of endeavor, Tschirhart discloses:
receive from the driver a selection of the selected rear view mirror based on an image of a head and face of the driver captured by an in-cabin camera as the driver looks at the selected rear view mirror. (see at least [0035] “As shown, a vision characteristic (e.g. the gaze vector 21) of the user is monitored by the sensor(s) 12. Where the field of focus 22 of the gaze vector 21 of the user is determined to be within a pre-defined region 46, 48, 50 of the rear-view mirror 30 of the vision component 16', the processor 14 transmits a signal to the controller 32 to modify a configuration of the rear-view mirror”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to receive a driver selection of a mirror based on a camera capturing where the driver is looking, as taught by Tschirhart to determine a mirror to modify [0035]. Examiner notes that while Goral does not explicitly disclose selecting a mirror based on the looking of the driver, it does disclose that the mirror may be selected differently based on the situation (see at least [0049] “ The illustrated embodiment shows an example of left side wing mirror on a left-hand drive vehicle, however, it will be apparent that the right side mirror can be similarly automated to deflect upon detection of a lean or like movement event.”), further supporting that it is obvious to modify Goral to select a particular mirror based on eye gaze of the diver.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 5, and Goral further discloses:
receive a first image of the head and face of the driver from the in-cabin camera while the driver is in a driver-preferred driving position; (see at least [0047] “the mirror/rear view display angular control system of the disclosure may have a first mode, related to regular driving conditions where a driver's head is by and large in a neutral position facing forward,”)
receive a second image of the head and face of the driver from the in-cabin camera when a desired view of selected rear view mirror is obtained by the driver; (see at least [0047] “and a second mode where a “blind spot peek” feature is activated in response to the DMS system detecting a distinct momentary deviation from the average vantage point towards left or right side of the vehicle, or up or down.”)
calculate the further adjustment to the selected rear view mirror based on a difference between the first image and the second image; (see at least [0060] “ For example, the mirror may deflect by a proportional amount to the amount of lean,") (*Examiner interprets the disclosure of a proportional movement of the mirror to the driver's body movement as meaning this proportion was calculated by the system)
and perform the further adjustment of the selected rear view mirror to the desired position using a mirror control system of the vehicle. (see at least [0047] “Such deviation triggers the second mode and (e.g. proportionally) changes the mirror's FOV,”)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 5, and Goral further discloses:
detect [a looking] of the driver while the driver is looking at the selected rear view mirror, via an in-cabin camera positioned proximate the selected rear view mirror; (see at least [Fig. 2B] [0018] “regarding in-cabin cameras, and driver monitoring. The system identifies and takes advantage of advanced driver monitoring systems already capable of tracking position and orientation of driver's head, and their gaze direction.”)
adjust the selected rear view mirror by rotating the selected rear view mirror around a horizontal central axis of the selected rear view mirror in an upward direction by predefined increments; (see at least [0057] “trigger a complimentary/amplifying (e.g. proportional) mirror adjustment that is likewise three dimensional, such as simultaneously deflecting in the opposite direction and tilting downward.") (*Examiner interprets a system capable of moving a mirror downwards as capable of also moving it upwards)
adjust the selected rear view mirror by rotating the selected mirror around the horizontal central axis of the selected rear view mirror in a downward direction by predefined increments; (see at least [0057] “trigger a complimentary/amplifying (e.g. proportional) mirror adjustment that is likewise three dimensional, such as simultaneously deflecting in the opposite direction and tilting downward.”)
adjust the selected rear view mirror by rotating the selected mirror around a vertical central axis of the selected rear view mirror in a leftward direction by predefined increments; (see at least [Fig. 3A & 3B] [0045] “ triggers a deflection of the mirror (with the edge closest to the driver pivoting toward the driver and the mirror overall rotating clockwise),") (*Examiner interprets a mirror capable of moving one way and back again as capable of moving both ways)
adjust the selected mirror by rotating the selected mirror around the vertical central axis of the selected rear view mirror in a rightward direction by predefined increments; (see at least [Fig. 3A & 3B] [0045] “ triggers a deflection of the mirror (with the edge closest to the driver pivoting toward the driver and the mirror overall rotating clockwise),") (*Examiner interprets a mirror capable of moving one way and back again as capable of moving both ways)
and in response to not detecting the eye gaze at the selected rear view mirror, stop rotating the selected mirror. (see at least [0048] “after activation of the second mode the mirror may return to its original position after a predetermined, i.e. short, period of time, or when the DMS system detects that the measured vantage point has returned to the vicinity of its average position”)
Goral does not explicitly disclose:
detect an eye gaze of the driver
while the eye gaze is detected at the selected rear view mirror: in response to detecting the eye gaze at a top portion of the selected rear view mirror,
in response to detecting the eye gaze at a bottom portion of the selected rear view mirror,
in response to detecting the eye gaze at a left side of the selected rear view mirror,
in response to detecting the eye gaze at a right side of the selected rear view mirror,
In the same field of endeavor, Tschirhart discloses:
detect an eye gaze of the driver (see at least [0024] “the instruction set 20 is a software adapted to determine a gaze vector 21 of a user based upon the information received by the processor”)
while the eye gaze is detected at the selected rear view mirror: in response to detecting the eye gaze at a top portion of the selected rear view mirror, (see at least [Figs 3-5 and 7] [0033] “As shown in FIG. 4, the user is gazing toward a pre-defined outer region 42 of one the side-view mirrors 26 of the vision component 16, wherein the field of focus 22 of the gaze vector 21 of the user is determined by the processor 14 to be within the outer region 42 of the side-view mirror 26. Accordingly, the controller 28 is caused to modify a configuration of the side-view mirror 26 in an outward direction relative to the vehicle 11. (*Examiner considers it obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the Goral and Tschirhart references, to adjust a mirror upwards in response to detecting the eye gaze at a top portion of the selected mirror. Goral discloses a system of pivoting the mirror vertically in response to a user looking upwards or downwards, and Tschirhart discloses a system of pivoting a mirror based on the part of the mirror at which the driver eye gaze is directed- therefore it is obvious in view of the combined references to apply the eye-gaze-based pivoting of Tschirhart to the vertical pivot adjustment of Goral)
in response to detecting the eye gaze at a bottom portion of the selected rear view mirror, (see at least [Figs 3-5 and 7] [0033] “(see at least [Figs 3-5 and 7] [0033] “As shown in FIG. 4, the user is gazing toward a pre-defined outer region 42 of one the side-view mirrors 26 of the vision component 16, wherein the field of focus 22 of the gaze vector 21 of the user is determined by the processor 14 to be within the outer region 42 of the side-view mirror 26. Accordingly, the controller 28 is caused to modify a configuration of the side-view mirror 26 in an outward direction relative to the vehicle 11. (*Examiner considers it obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the Goral and Tschirhart references, to adjust a mirror downwards in response to detecting the eye gaze at a bottom portion of the selected mirror. Goral discloses a system of pivoting the mirror vertically in response to a user looking upwards or downwards, and Tschirhart discloses a system of pivoting a mirror based on the part of the mirror at which the driver eye gaze is directed- therefore it is obvious in view of the combined references to apply the eye-gaze-based pivoting of Tschirhart to the vertical pivot adjustment of Goral)
in response to detecting the eye gaze at a left side of the selected rear view mirror, (see at least [Fig. 4] [0033] “As shown in FIG. 4, the user is gazing toward a pre-defined outer region 42 of one the side-view mirrors 26 of the vision component 16, wherein the field of focus 22 of the gaze vector 21 of the user is determined by the processor 14 to be within the outer region 42 of the side-view mirror 26. Accordingly, the controller 28 is caused to modify a configuration of the side-view mirror 26 in an outward direction relative to the vehicle 11.”)
in response to detecting the eye gaze at a right side of the selected rear view mirror, (see at least [Fig. 5] [0034] “ As shown in FIG. 5, the user is gazing toward a pre-defined inner region 44 of one the side-view mirrors 26 of the vision component 16, wherein the field of focus 22 of the gaze vector 21 of the user is determined by the processor 14 to be within the inner region 44 of the side-view mirror 26. Accordingly, the controller 28 is caused to modify a configuration of the side-view mirror 26 in an inner direction relative to the vehicle 11.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to determine an eye gaze of a driver on a certain edge of the mirror and rotate the mirror around an axis in the corresponding direction, as taught by Tschirhart to control a mirror based on the determined eye gaze [0033].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 8, and Goral further discloses:
in response to not detecting the eye gaze at any of the one or more rear view mirrors for a threshold amount of time, switch off the automatic mirror adjustment mode. (see at least [0048] “after activation of the second mode the mirror may return to its original position after a predetermined, i.e. short, period of time, or when the DMS system detects that the measured vantage point has returned to the vicinity of its average position”)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goral (US 20250001936), herein after referred to as Goral, in view of in view of Choi (KR 20220026232), herein after referred to as Choi, Beuschel (DE 102018211835), herein after referred to as Beuschel, Tschirhart (US 20120093358), herein after referred to as Tschirhart, Roy (US 11048105), herein after referred to as Roy, and Ninh (US 20240083358), herein after referred to as Ninh.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Goral does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the further adjustment to the selected rear view mirror is calculated by a second AI model trained to take as input the first image and the second image, and output one or more angles to rotate the selected rear view mirror around one or more central axes of the selected rear view mirror to achieve the desired position.
In the same field of endeavor, Beuschel discloses:
wherein the further adjustment to the selected rear view mirror is calculated by a second AI model (see at least [0020] “second component adjustable in a position is a mirror of the vehicle and the artificial neural network determines both an adjustment position of the seat and an adjustment position of the mirror. In this case, the artificial neural network was”)
and output one or more angles to rotate the selected rear view mirror around one or more central axes of the selected rear view mirror to achieve the desired position. (see at least [0035] “The control device A generates a control signal with which an actuator AK can be operated. The actuator AK can then, for example, set a position of the mirror SP”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to determine an eye gaze of a driver on a certain edge of the mirror and rotate the mirror around an axis in the corresponding direction, as taught by Beuschel to utilize an AI to control a vehicle mirror [0020].
In the same field of endeavor, Ninh discloses:
trained to take as input the first image and the second image, (see at least [0059] “The system 100 further comprises an artificial intelligence (AI) model 103. The AI model 103 is configured to estimate a three dimension (3D) eye location with respect to the 3D coordinate of the primary camera 101 based on the captured facial image obtained by the primary camera 101.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral and Beuschel to use an AI model trained to take as input the first image and the second image, as taught by Ninh to estimate a driver’s eye location in relation to the camera [0059] in order to control a vehicle mirror [0060].
Claims 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goral (US 20250001936), herein after referred to as Goral, in view of Choi (KR 20220026232), herein after referred to as Choi.
Regarding Claim 10, Goral discloses:
adjusting a rear view mirror of a vehicle (see at least [0016] “The control signal may activate a motor associated with a rear view reflective mirror to angularly adjust the mirror”)
to a default mirror position for a driver seated in the vehicle, (see at least [0041] “Adjustment of mirrors to a new driver may be implemented over a shorter time period, i.e. from when the new driver first starts operating the vehicle, the DMS may detect a new driver/body dimensions and immediately adjust rear view device FOV accordingly.”)
the sensor data including one or more of a height of the seat of the driver, an inclination of the seat of the driver, a position of the seat of the driver with respect to a reference position of the seat of the driver, and a weight of the driver; (see at least [0017] “the processor is configured to track, through the captured image data, a position and/or orientation of the driver's head from the image data. In this way it can be determined whether a driver is: (i) looking forward, but their position is changing over time (such as slouching/sinking into their seat); (ii) looking at a rear view mirror; and/or (iii) whether the driver is leaning toward or away from the rear view display.”)
and in response to receiving a selection of an automatic mirror adjustment mode of the vehicle by the driver, further adjusting the rear view mirror based on a visual input of the driver captured by an in-cabin camera. (see at least [0046] “the mirror may be adjusted by detecting both a head rotation toward the mirror (because it is assumed a driver is looking at the mirror for driving assistance) and a leaning movement. Detection of one or both of these movements indicates a desire by the driver to obtain a better view/vantage point. Accordingly, upon detection of the behavior, the mirror is temporarily deflected to provide that better view”)
Goral does not explicitly disclose:
based on sensor data received from a seat of the driver while the driver is seated in the vehicle
In the same field of endeavor, Choi discloses:
based on sensor data received from a seat of the driver while the driver is seated in the vehicle (see at least [0031] “The above sensing unit (100) is installed in the driver's seat where the driver sits, and outputs a sensing value regarding the driver's driving posture." [0041] "The above control unit (400) controls the entire device, and in particular, controls the mirror driving unit (200) using the sensing value output from the sensing unit (100)”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to determine mirror control based on sensor data received from a seat of the driver while the driver is seated in the vehicle, as taught by Choi to control a mirror based on seat-sensed data of the user [0041].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 10, and Goral further discloses:
wherein the rear view mirror includes an inside rear view mirror, a right side mirror of the vehicle, or a left side mirror of the vehicle. (see at least [0038] “ According to FIG. 2A, automatic adjustment of side-view mirror 12 is shown”)
Regarding Claim 14, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 10, and Goral further discloses:
wherein the rear view mirror is one of a plurality of rear view mirrors of the vehicle, (see at least [0011] “a solution is provided for adapting the field of view (FOV) in one or more rear-view mirrors”)
and wherein further adjusting the rear view mirror based on the visual input of the driver captured by the in-cabin camera further comprises: selecting the rear view mirror from the plurality of rear view mirrors based on a first image of a head and face of the driver captured by the in-cabin camera; (see at least [0049] “ The illustrated embodiment shows an example of left side wing mirror on a left-hand drive vehicle, however, it will be apparent that the right side mirror can be similarly automated to deflect upon detection of a lean or like movement event.”)
receiving a second image of a head and face of the driver from the in-cabin camera while the driver is in a driver-preferred driving position; (see at least [Fig. 1, item 13][0047] “ the mirror/rear view display angular control system of the disclosure may have a first mode, related to regular driving conditions where a driver's head is by and large in a neutral position facing forward,”)
receiving, after the driver moves their head to obtain a desired view of a rear environment of the driver and/or vehicle via the selected rear view mirror, a third image of the head and face of the driver from the in-cabin camera when the desired view of the rear environment is obtained; (see at least [Fig. 1, item 13] [0047] “and a second mode where a “blind spot peek” feature is activated in response to the DMS system detecting a distinct momentary deviation from the average vantage point towards left or right side of the vehicle, or up or down. ”)
calculating an adjustment to the selected rear view mirror based on a difference between the second image and the third image; (see at least [0060] “ the mirror may deflect by a proportional amount to the amount of lean, even if deflection is amplified; or it may be that a slight lean above a threshold is sufficient to indicate an intention to obtain a better vantage point and the mirror may deflect by a maximum or other suitable amount”)
and performing the adjustment to the selected mirror using a mirror control system of the vehicle. (see at least [0047] “Such deviation triggers the second mode and (e.g. proportionally) changes the mirror's FOV, as if it amplified the normally occurring change in the viewing angle as a result of leaning/extending.”)
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goral (US 20250001936), herein after referred to as Goral, in view of Choi (KR 20220026232), herein after referred to as Choi.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 10, however Goral does not explicitly disclose:
inputting the sensor data into a first AI model, and receiving as an output of the first AI model one or more angles to rotate the rear view mirror around one or more central axes of the rear view mirror to achieve the default position of the mirror
In the same field of endeavor, Beuschel discloses:
inputting the sensor data into a first AI model, and receiving as an output of the first AI model one or more angles to rotate the rear view mirror around one or more central axes of the rear view mirror to achieve the default position of the mirror see at least [0002] “There are many adjustment options, such as seat height, seat inclination," [0021] "if the seat adjustment position is corrected by the user, the artificial neural network can correct the adjustment position of the mirror.") (*Examiner interprets the seat adjustment position as including seat height and inclination as these typical seat adjustments are included as what the reference expressly uses to describe what as seat position may be.)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to input a received driver-selected seat position into an AI model and receive as output a mirror position, as taught by Beuschel to use seat position to set mirror position by an AI model [0021].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 12 and Goral further discloses:
the one or more angles and the one or more central axes include a first angle to rotate the rear view mirror around a horizontal central axis of the rear view mirror and a second angle to rotate the rear view mirror around a vertical central axis of the rear view mirror to achieve the default mirror position. (see at least [0057] “trigger a complimentary/amplifying (e.g. proportional) mirror adjustment that is likewise three dimensional, such as simultaneously deflecting in the opposite direction and tilting downward.”)
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goral (US 20250001936), herein after referred to as Goral, in view of Choi (KR 20220026232), herein after referred to as Choi, Beuschel (DE 102018211835), herein after referred to as Beuschel, and Ninh (US 20240083358), herein after referred to as Ninh.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 14, however Goral does not explicitly disclose:
inputting the second image and the third image into a second AI model, and receiving as an output of the second AI model one or more angles to rotate the selected rear view mirror around one or more central axes of the selected rear view mirror to achieve a target position that increases a size of an unobstructed portion of a view of the rear environment for the driver.
In the same field of endeavor, Beuschel discloses:
and receiving as an output of the second AI model one or more angles to rotate the selected rear view mirror around one or more central axes of the selected rear view mirror to achieve a target position (see at least [0035] “The control device A generates a control signal with which an actuator AK can be operated. The actuator AK can then, for example, set a position of the mirror SP”)
that increases a size of an unobstructed portion of a view of the rear environment for the driver. (see at least [0038] “the vision system 10 automatically modifies the image presented to the user, thereby maximizing a viewable coverage area of the vision components 16, 16', 16'' without the requirement manual manipulation.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to receive as an output of an AI model one or more angles to rotate the selected mirror around one or more central axes of the selected mirror to achieve a target position the corresponding direction that increases a size of an unobstructed portion of a view of the rear environment for the driver, as taught by Beuschel to utilize an AI to control a vehicle mirror [0020].
In the same field of endeavor, Ninh discloses:
inputting the second image and the third image into a second AI model, (see at least [0059] “The system 100 further comprises an artificial intelligence (AI) model 103. The AI model 103 is configured to estimate a three dimension (3D) eye location with respect to the 3D coordinate of the primary camera 101 based on the captured facial image obtained by the primary camera 101.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral and Beuschel to use an AI model trained to take as input the first image and the second image, as taught by Ninh to estimate a driver’s eye location in relation to the camera [0059] in order to control a vehicle mirror [0060].
Regarding Claim 16, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 15, however Goral does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second AI model is a machine learning (ML) model trained, using supervised learning, on a plurality of training data pairs, each training data pair including a first training image of a sample driver of a sample vehicle in a first position typical for the sample driver for operating the sample vehicle, and a second training image of the sample driver in a second position at which a desired view of a rear environment of the sample vehicle via a mirror of the sample vehicle is achieved by the sample driver, and a current position of the mirror as input data, and a desired position of the mirror for the sample driver as ground truth data.
In the same field of endeavor, Beuschel discloses:
and a current position of the mirror as input data, and a desired position of the mirror for the sample driver as ground truth data. (see at least [0015] “According to one embodiment of the method, the setting position determined by the artificial neural network can further be corrected by the user and the artificial neural network can be trained taking into account the corrected setting position”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to train an AI model using an AI model a current position of the mirror as input data, and a desired position of the mirror for the sample driver as ground truth data, as taught by Beuschel to utilize an AI to control a vehicle mirror [0020].
In the same field of endeavor, Ninh discloses:
wherein the second AI model is a machine learning (ML) model trained, using supervised learning, (see at least [0053] “the neural network may be trained through supervised learning”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral and Beuschel to use machine learning trained via machine learning, as taught by Ninh to estimate a driver’s eye location in relation to the camera [0059] in order to control a vehicle mirror [0060].
Further, Ninh and Beuschel make the following obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art:
each training data pair including a first training image of a sample driver of a sample vehicle in a first position typical for the sample driver for operating the sample vehicle, and a second training image of the sample driver in a second position at which a desired view of a rear environment of the sample vehicle via a mirror of the sample vehicle is achieved by the sample driver,
As Ninh discloses both a system for training an AI to determine driver eye information in a vehicle control system (see at least [0059] “the AI model 103 has been trained to extract facial information of the driver's face from the captured image and then use such facial information to estimate the 3D eye location.”) and correlate this to a mirror control by the system (see at least [0060] “The system 100 further comprises a mapping module 104 comprising a lookup table for mapping the estimated 3D eye location to an optimal rotation angle comprising a respective set of pitch and yaw of the side mirror 102.”), Beuschel discloses a system which uses an AI to determine and set the mirror angles based on training from driver inputs (see at least [0041] “the artificial neural network NN has determined the setting position, but the user P4 subsequently manually corrects the setting position of the component”), and the primary reference Goral discloses a first and second image where the driver is at typical location and a position at which a desired view of a rear environment of the sample vehicle via a mirror of the sample vehicle is achieved (see at least [0047] “ the mirror/rear view display angular control system of the disclosure may have a first mode, related to regular driving conditions where a driver's head is by and large in a neutral position facing forward and a second mode where a “blind spot peek” feature is activated in response to the DMS system detecting a distinct momentary deviation from the average vantage point towards left or right side of the vehicle, or up or down. ”) it is obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the above limitation. As the AI system of Beuschel discloses the determination of the mirror setting, it would be obvious to modify the system of Ninh to perform the setting determination by the AI as well instead of using the lookup table, as well as modify Beuschel to use the data of Goral as the user input for training. In other words, the claimed limitations which claims a typical machine learning process using certain inputs and outputs is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of combination of the three references which disclose machine learning as well as the claimed input and output.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 15, and Goral further discloses:
further comprising receiving a sequence of images of the driver from the in-cabin camera, the sequence beginning with the second image and ending with the third image, (see at least [0047] “ a first mode, related to regular driving conditions where a driver's head is by and large in a neutral position facing forward, and a second mode where a “blind spot peek” feature is activated in response to the DMS system detecting a distinct momentary deviation from the average vantage point towards left or right side of the vehicle, or up or down. Such deviation triggers the second mode") (Examiner interprets a system capable of continuously monitoring a driver until the driver moves as taking a sequence of images which are analyzed over time, to determine the first and second image)
[control the mirror] based on the sequence of images. (see at least [0046] “upon detection of the behavior, the mirror is temporarily deflected to provide that better view until the movement is detected as ended”)
Goral does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second AI model takes the sequence of images as input data, and outputs the one or more angles to rotate the selected rear view mirror
In the same field of endeavor, Ninh discloses:
wherein the second AI model takes the sequence of images as input data, (see at least [0059] “The system 100 further comprises an artificial intelligence (AI) model 103. The AI model 103 is configured to estimate a three dimension (3D) eye location with respect to the 3D coordinate of the primary camera 101 based on the captured facial image obtained by the primary camera 101.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral and Beuschel to use machine learning trained via machine learning, as taught by Ninh to estimate a driver’s eye location in relation to the camera [0059] in order to control a vehicle mirror [0060].
In the same field of endeavor, Beuschel discloses:
and outputs the one or more angles to rotate the selected rear view mirror. (see at least [0035] “The control device A generates a control signal with which an actuator AK can be operated. The actuator AK can then, for example, set a position of the mirror SP”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to output, by an AI, one or more angles to rotate the selected mirror, as taught by Beuschel to utilize an AI to control a vehicle mirror [0020].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goral (US 20250001936), herein after referred to as Goral, in view of Choi (KR 20220026232), herein after referred to as Choi, and Tschirhart (US 20120093358), herein after referred to as Tschirhart.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 10, and Goral further discloses:
wherein the in-cabin camera is a first in-cabin camera (see at least [0018] “the disclosure recognizes additional requirements on new cars regarding in-cabin cameras, and driver monitoring. The system identifies and takes advantage of advanced driver monitoring systems already capable of tracking position and orientation of driver's head, and their gaze direction.”)
and wherein further adjusting the rear view mirror based on the visual input of the driver captured by the in-cabin camera further comprises: selecting the rear view mirror from among a plurality of rear view mirrors based on a first image of a head and face of the driver captured by the first in-cabin camera; (see at least [0049] “ The illustrated embodiment shows an example of left side wing mirror on a left-hand drive vehicle, however, it will be apparent that the right side mirror can be similarly automated to deflect upon detection of a lean or like movement event.”)
adjusting the selected rear view mirror by incrementally rotating the selected mirror around a central axis of the selected mirror towards the edge, (see at least [Fig. 3A & 3B] [0045] “ triggers a deflection of the mirror (with the edge closest to the driver pivoting toward the driver and the mirror overall rotating clockwise),") (*Examiner interprets a mirror capable of moving one way and back again as capable of moving both ways)
and in response to not detecting the eye gaze at any of the plurality of view mirrors for a threshold amount of time, switching off the automatic mirror adjustment mode. (see at least [0048] “after activation of the second mode the mirror may return to its original position after a predetermined, i.e. short, period of time, or when the DMS system detects that the measured vantage point has returned to the vicinity of its average position”)
Goral does not explicitly disclose:
detecting an eye gaze of the driver at the selected mirror while the driver is looking at the selected rear view mirror, via a second in-cabin camera positioned proximate the selected rear view mirror;
in response to detecting the eye gaze at an edge of the selected rear view mirror,
until the eye gaze is no longer detected at the edge;
In the same field of endeavor, Tschirhart discloses:
detecting an eye gaze of the driver at the selected rear view mirror while the driver is looking at the selected mirror, (see at least [0035] “As shown, a vision characteristic (e.g. the gaze vector 21) of the user is monitored by the sensor(s) 12. Where the field of focus 22 of the gaze vector 21 of the user is determined to be within a pre-defined region 46, 48, 50 of the rear-view mirror 30 of the vision component 16', the processor 14 transmits a signal to the controller 32 to modify a configuration of the rear-view mirror”)
via a second in-cabin camera positioned proximate the selected rear view mirror; (see at least [Fig. 1, items 12] [0035] “ a vision characteristic (e.g. the gaze vector 21) of the user is monitored by the sensor(s) 12.”)
in response to detecting the eye gaze at an edge of the selected rear view mirror, (see at least [Fig. 4] [0033] “As shown in FIG. 4, the user is gazing toward a pre-defined outer region 42 of one the side-view mirrors 26 of the vision component 16, wherein the field of focus 22 of the gaze vector 21 of the user is determined by the processor 14 to be within the outer region 42 of the side-view mirror 26. Accordingly, the controller 28 is caused to modify a configuration of the side-view mirror 26 in an outward direction relative to the vehicle 11.”)
until the eye gaze is no longer detected at the edge; (see at least [0033] “ the side-view mirror 26 is configured such that a portion of the image in the outer region 42 is presented at or near a center point of the side-view mirror 26 once the side-view mirror 26 has been reconfigured.”)
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goral (US 20250001936), herein after referred to as Goral, in view of Tschirhart (US 20120093358), herein after referred to as Tschirhart.
Regarding Claim 19, Goral discloses:
a rear view mirror, (see at least [0012] “The term “rear view device” or “image device” in the context of the disclosure is a safety device for a driver to see behind their sitting position, whether it be by way of a reflective mirror (e.g. classic “wing” mirrors or central “rear view” mirrors)”)
a position of the rear view mirror adjustable via an electrical rear view mirror (RVM) unit and a physical RVM unit associated with the rear view mirror; (see at least [0010] “a control system for adaption of a mirror or other rear view display device to a plurality of driving scenarios of a vehicle”)
a processor, (see at least [0010] “ and at least one processor configured to monitor”)
and instructions stored in a memory of the vehicle that when executed, cause the processor to: (see at least [0023] “ a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions, which when executed by one or more processors,”)
send an electrical signal to the electrical RVM, the electrical RVM configured to actuate the physical RVM unit to adjust a position of the rear view mirror in response to the electrical signal, the electrical signal encoding one or more angles to rotate the rear view mirror around one or more central axes of the rear view mirror, (see at least [0016] “ the processor generates a control signal if monitored behavior/movement is outside a predetermined threshold. The control signal may activate a motor associated with a rear view reflective mirror to angularly adjust the mirror”)
the one or more angles generated by one of: a head tracking model that outputs the one or more angles based on a first image of a head and face of the driver captured by an in-cabin camera of the vehicle while the driver is in a driver-preferred driving position, and a second image of the head and face of the driver captured by the in-cabin camera when a desired view of the rear view mirror is obtained by the driver; (see at least [0045] “the behavior of leaning to the right triggers a deflection of the mirror (with the edge closest to the driver pivoting toward the driver and the mirror overall rotating clockwise)" [0061] "The system may alternate between modes, such as from a default driving mode, where long-term posture of the driver is monitored to determine whether subtle adjustment is needed to the rear view mirror to compensate for a driver slouching over time, and one or more modes in response to more immediate, voluntary and deliberate movements.”)
and the automatic mirror positioning system based on a direction of an [view] of the driver detected by an [driver view] detector as the driver is looking at the rear view mirror. (see at least [0057] “According to the above, it should be clear that behavior and movement can be detected in three-dimensional space, e.g. to lean in one direction and/or while lifting up from the driver's seat to give more height, which may trigger a complimentary/amplifying (e.g. proportional) mirror adjustment that is likewise three dimensional, such as simultaneously deflecting in the opposite direction and tilting downward.”)
Goral does not explicitly disclose:
the one or more angles generated during an automatic mirror adjustment mode activated in response to user input received from a driver of the vehicle,
an eye gaze of the driver detected by an eye gaze detector
In the same field of endeavor, Tschirhart discloses:
the one or more angles generated during an automatic mirror adjustment mode activated in response to user input received from a driver of the vehicle, (see at least [0031] “the user interface 16 may provide a selective control over the automatic configuration of the vision components 16, 16', 16''. For example, the vision components 16, 16', 16'' may always revert to a default configuration unless the user initiates a vision mode, wherein at least one of the vision components 16, 16', 16'' is automatically configured to the personalized configuration associated with the vision characteristics of the user.”)
an eye gaze of the driver detected by an eye gaze detector (see at least [0024] “the instruction set 20 is a software adapted to determine a gaze vector 21 of a user based upon the information received by the processor”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle mirror control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Goral to determine an eye gaze of a driver by an eye gaze detector and operate mirror in response to receiving user input from the driver including a selection of an automatic mirror adjustment mode of the vehicle by the driver, as taught by Tschirhart to control a mirror based on the determined eye gaze [0033].
Regarding Claim 20, modified Goral discloses the limitations of Claim 19, and Goral further discloses:
wherein the electrical signal further includes an encoding of a predefined increment at which the rear view mirror is rotated. (see at least [0060] “ For example, the mirror may deflect by a proportional amount to the amount of lean, even if deflection is amplified; or it may be that a slight lean above a threshold is sufficient to indicate an intention to obtain a better vantage point and the mirror may deflect by a maximum or other suitable amount.”)
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 JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662