CTFR 18/881,594 CTFR 82152 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., homogeneous and harmonized display of different assistance systems ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . Even further, the context in which applicant is presenting the terms ‘different’, ‘homogenous’ and ‘harmonized’ is veering on the edge of indefiniteness. In an effort of good faith and compact prosecution, the examiner made their broadest reasonable interpretation when analyzing the claims against their better judgement to avoid a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to apply Appia and only Appia. At best, the claims casually use these terms with no purpose of specificity as purported in the applicant’s allegations. Further, after a cursory updated review of the specification all references to different systems, harmonizations and homogeneity are rife with vague notions, ‘at least one of’s’ and exemplary embodiments that do not any probative value to putting meaningful bounds around the claimed or envisaged invention. Notably, the applicant fails to specifically point to their own specification to detail any recitation of this alleged blending of completely unique and unrelated systems. PNG media_image1.png 610 920 media_image1.png Greyscale Further, for sake of ease the examiner has provided Appia’s FIG. 9, which shows a detailed diagram of all of the various different assistance systems working both homogeneously and in harmony as per the disclosure. For those reasons, the examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the rejections of Appia as presented below in their unaltered form . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Appia et al., (US 2017/0195564 A1) referred to as APPIA hereinafter . Regarding claim 11, APPIA shows a method for making vehicle surroundings visible in a motor vehicle for a vehicle occupant, the method comprising: recording camera image data of the vehicle surroundings with multiple different assistance systems of the motor vehicle which each comprise at least one camera ( FIG. 8, 811-814 ); and performing harmonization in terms of specified image and/or display properties for homogeneous display of the camera image data ( Paragraphs [0067] disclose a synthesizer and its associated functions, which serve to generate a composite of video frames from each camera channel. ) with at least one display device of the motor vehicle, wherein camera image data, required for display with the at least one display device, of the different assistance systems are homogeneously displayed, and correspondingly harmonized ( Paragraphs [0069], [0070] and [0074] all disclose a display system for displaying the harmonized [synthesized] image to the driver or other occupants of the vehicle. ). Regarding claim 12, APPIA shows the limitations of claim 11 as applied above, and further shows wherein the camera image data are recorded with cameras of different assistance systems which are located at different positions of the motor vehicle and/or are oriented in different directions ( See FIG. 9 for a comprehensive depiction of various cameras and assistance devices. ). Regarding claim 13, APPIA shows the limitations of claim 12 as applied above, and further shows wherein the cameras which differ in terms of at least one hardware and/or software property are used to record the camera image data ( See the Legend for FIG. 9, which demonstrates the buffet of various different camera and assistance options for data collection. ). Regarding claim 14, APPIA shows the limitations of claim 11 as applied above, and further shows wherein the different assistance systems comprise a first assistance system configured to aid a continuous driving mode of the motor vehicle ( FIG. 9 wherein there are various systems for continuous driving conditions, such as lane change, traffic sign detection, collision/pedestrian detection and avoidance and adaptive cruise control. ) and a second assistance system configured to aid a parking or maneuvering mode of the motor vehicle ( FIG. 9, PARK ASSIST ). Regarding claim 16, APPIA shows the limitations of claim 11 as applied above, and further shows wherein the specified image and/or display properties include at least one of: brightness, color reproduction, color space, color temperature, and contrast ( In addition to the features above, paragraphs [0022] and [0025] disclose photometric alignment that corrects various color and parameter mismatches. ). Regarding claim 17, APPIA shows the limitations of claim 11 as applied above, and further shows wherein at least one predefined variable is included in the harmonization in individual closed-loop control systems of the at least one camera, which variable is influenced by another camera ( In addition to the features above, paragraphs [0022] and [0025] disclose photometric alignment that corrects various color and parameter mismatches. ). Regarding claim 18, APPIA shows the limitations of claim 17 as applied above, and further shows wherein uniform ambient brightness and/or a uniform color temperature is determined for the harmonization based on overlapping areas in which recording areas of the at least one camera of different assistance systems, overlap, and is used for the harmonization of the image and/or display properties, including open-loop exposure control systems of the at least one camera ( In addition to the features above, paragraphs [0022] and [0025] disclose photometric alignment that corrects various color and parameter mismatches. ). Regarding claim 19, APPIA shows the limitations of claim 18 as applied above, and further shows wherein, in the harmonization, the at least one camera is controlled uniformly in a closed loop based on a specified uniform image statistical model and/or uniform reference points in the vehicle surroundings ( Paragraph [0024] discloses the initial calibration of all cameras wherein they all use a common reference chart in order to control the settings discussed above. ). Regarding claim 20, APPIA shows a motor vehicle ( FIG. 9 ), comprising: multiple different assistance systems ( FIG. 9, 911, 912, 913 and 914 ), which comprise at least one camera ( FIG. 9, Legend ), and at least one display device ( FIG. 9, 920 ), wherein the motor vehicle is configured to provide harmonized display of camera image data recorded with the at least one camera of the multiple different assistance systems on the at least one display device by the method according to claim 11 ( See the mappings to the limitations of claim 11 as these features are rejected under the same or similar rationale. ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APPIA in view of LEE et al., (US 2023/0258466 A1) referred to as LEE hereinafter . Regarding claim 15, APPIA shows the limitations of claim 14 as applied above, and further shows wherein the second assistance system is configured to provide camera-based representation of the surroundings associated with parking or maneuvering ( FIG. 4 ). However, APPIA fails to but LEE does specifically disclose wherein a first assistance system is configured to supply AR functions associated with navigation ( Paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0008] and [0019] are a sampling of various paragraphs that discuss augmented reality applications for digital signage as related to cameras on the exterior of a moving vehicle. ). Both APPIA and LEE are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they both deal in external vehicular cameras used in motion and to capture surroundings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify APPIA in the spirit of LEE because it cures the problems with previous advertising efforts as described in Paragraph [0008] of LEE. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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. JUSTIN W. RIDER Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 2486 /Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/881,594 Page 2 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/881,594 Page 3 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/881,594 Page 4 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/881,594 Page 5 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/881,594 Page 6 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/881,594 Page 7 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/881,594 Page 8 Art Unit: 2486
Prosecution Insights