DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US Patent 10,666,908 B2).
With regard to claims 1, 3-4, and 18-19: Park discloses an exterior vehicle component (exterior mirror component 14) which comprises a camera (image sensor unit 30) and a lens array which includes a first optical element 20 and a second optical element 22, each of which provides a different field-of-view (see column 3 lines 56-64) and an actuator which is configured to move the camera relative to the lens array to align the camera with a corresponding one of the first optical element or the second optical element (see column 4 lines 11-45 describing movement of the camera unit along guide rails by a solenoid based actuator).
With regard to claim 6: The actuator of Park is disclosed as being configured to move the camera in a lateral direction (movement of 30 to be behind the lens elements 20 and 22 in the positions shown in Figure 1 requires movement of the image sensor on a lateral (parallel to the ground) plane.
With regard to claim 13: Park discloses that the exterior vehicle component is part of a system (shown diagrammatically in Figure 5) which include a controller which is configured to cause the camera to be aligned with a corresponding one of the first or second optical element based on a manual control input (see column 4 line 65 through column 5 line 20).
With regard to claim 14: The actuator of Park moves the camera on an arctuate path (in order to move the camera unit 30 to selectively align with lens 20 facing rearward and lens 22 facing to the side as drawn in Figure 1 the guide rails 52 and 53 of Park must be curved).
With regard to claim 15: The first optical element and the second optical element are disposed on different faces of the exterior vehicle component (20 is a on a rear-facing face and 22 is on a side-facing face), and the actuator is configured to rotate the camera (along guide rails 52 and 53) to align the camera with the first or second optical elements.
With regard to claims 16 and 20: The exterior vehicle component of Park include an exterior mirror housing 14 and a mirror (visible in Figure 1), with the camera being disposed within the exterior mirror housing (behind the lens 20 and 22 shown in Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Robert (US 8,670,035 B2).
While some form of electrical connection must be present in Park in order to carry the camera video signal to the display monitor 90, and some form of electrical connection must be present in order to supply drive power to the solenoid actuator of Park in response to the user actuating switch 80 as described in column 5 lines 1-20, there is not an explicit disclosure that the same electrical cable provides both a route for the video signal via a coaxial cable and power or a control signal for the actuator.
Robert indicates that it is conventional to use a wiring harness cable, comprising a plurality of power, signal, and video conductors (the last of which being coaxial cables), to transmit video and power within a vehicle vision system, see column 7 line 45 through column 8 line 17.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have used a single cable (in the form of a wiring harness incorporating multiple conductors within a single bundle) to conduct power (or power and control signals) to the actuator of Park as well as conduct the video signal output by the camera to the monitor for display, as Robert indicates that such a harness is conventional in the art of automotive electronics and is suitable for use for such purpose.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Shin et al (US Patent 11,858,424 B2).
With regard to claim 10: Park does not disclose the optical characteristics of the lenses used, and thus does not teach the use of a fish eye lens as one of the optical elements.
Shin indicates that fish eye lenses are appropriate for blind spot cameras on a vehicle due to their wide field of view capturing both the blind spot and the surrounding environment (see column 9 lines 45-63).
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 configured one of the lenses of Park to be a fish eye lens in order to better image the blind spots of the vehicle as well as the environment around the blind spots.
With regard to claim 12: While Park does disclose the use of the vehicle component as part of an imaging system (shown schematically in Figure 5), Park does not disclose that the system includes a controller which is configured to cause the camera to be aligned with a corresponding one of the optical elements based on a vehicle speed.
Shin indicates that vehicle vision systems can be configured to automatically select which image to display based on combinations of driving conditions which can include vehicle speed (see column 9 lines 45-63 and column 12 line 60 through column 13 line 13).
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 configured the system of Park to automatically select an appropriate lens according to the current detected driving state of the vehicle, including using speed as an input, in order to automatically present the most relevant image to the drive of the vehicle.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Matsui (JP 2007-106146 A).
With regard to claim 11: Park does not disclose the inclusion of a prism in either of the first or second optical elements.
Matsui teaches that an optical path of a vehicle camera can be configured to include an insertable infrared-selective prism element. This design allows for the camera to capture both downward-facing visible images and horizontal-facing infrared images (which may be useful in low light circumstances, see section titled “ADVANTAGEOUS-EFFECTS”).
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 equipped one of the optical elements of Park with an insertable IR prism as in Matsui to enable the optical path with the prism to further act as an IR camera usable in low light situations.
Claim 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kim et al (US Patent 10,315,578 B2).
With regard to claims 17 and 21: Park does indicate in Figure 1 that the exterior mirror housing is of a design that includes a lower downward facing surface which is configured to be disposed parallel to a ground surface (the bottom portion of the mirror housing appears to be such that it would be substantially flat as the housing is drawn in Figure 1, as the apparent connection point to the vehicle comes from the side of the mirror housing).
Park does not disclose that a portion of the lens array is located on the lower surface of the exterior mirror housing.
Kim indicates that it is desirable to configure a vehicle mirror camera system to include one view direction which points downward in order to aid in parking the vehicle as well as enable lane-drift detection (see column 5 lines 37-44).
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 positioned one of the lenses (or an additional lens) on the bottom surface of the mirror housing in order to aid in parking and enable lane drift detection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose the combination of components in an exterior vehicle component as claimed in claim 3 with the additional limitations regarding the actuator as claimed in claims 5 or 7. The prior art does teach a number of camera systems which include movable objective lenses or longitudinal movement mechanisms to switch the optical path of an imaging system. See for examples Wang et al (CN 113890964 A) or Kogane (US Patent 11,064,126 B2) but these camera systems are not used in a vehicular environment. This is important as the prior art indicates a general recognition that vehicular cameras are subjected to unusually harsh conditions and includes explicit teachings to avoid using moving parts in such cameras is possible, see for example Knipl et al (DE 10 2019 215 311 A1) which states in the section titled “State of the Art”: “vehicle cameras are subject to other strong mechanical loads, such as vibrations. The installation of moving parts in a vehicle camera is therefore avoided if possible.” This is supported by other switchable multi-directional camera systems which are used in vehicular conditions not incorporating movable elements and instead using non-mechanical optical switching arrangements, see Lintz et al (US Patent 12,298,500 B2) which uses light valves and Philipp et al (US Patent 12,128,826 B2) which uses a “light blocker” or electronically variable polarizing filter to switch optical paths (and includes a note in column 8 lines 41-45 that a key benefit of the arrangement is the lack of any mechanical motion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights