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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baur published on US 10960822 B2, hereinafter “Baur”.
Regarding Claim 1. Baur discloses an image capturing apparatus installable on a side of a movable apparatus (Column 1 lines 51-67; “(4) ... The camera is centrally located at the vehicle and has a rearward field of view that encompasses the area rearward and sideward of the vehicle that is required by regulations for side exterior rearview mirror assemblies, while the side rearview mirror assemblies comprise aspheric or curved reflective elements that provide a blind spot or wide angle field of view to the driver viewing the side rearview mirror assemblies. The camera and side mirror assemblies thus cooperate to provide the small regulation required rearward field of view to the driver of the vehicle, while also providing a desired wide angle or blind spot viewing field of view. ...”), the image capturing apparatus comprising:
at least one image capturing unit capable of capturing an image of a first region to the rear of the movable apparatus and an image of a second region in a direction different from the rear of the movable apparatus (Column 5 lines 48-67; Figures 6 and 8; “(32) For example, and such as shown in FIG. 8, the displayed image may include an image of a mirror reflective element of an exterior mirror that includes a rearward image as would be seen at the exterior mirror (and captured by a camera at a typical exterior mirror camera and/or a rear camera), and the displayed image includes images around the displayed reflective element that represent the sideward and forward field of view of the driver (as captured by one or more sideward and forward viewing cameras that capture images of the blind spot area created by the A-pillar). ... One or more cameras may be disposed at the vehicle and may view generally sideward and/or forward of the driver to capture image data that is used to generate the displayed images of the portions of the scene ...”);
a half mirror disposed at a position at which an occupant of the movable apparatus can view an image to the rear of the movable apparatus (Column 3 lines 20-36; Figures 4-5; “(21) Referring now to the drawings … a vehicle 10 includes a rearvision system 12 that includes a single centrally located camera 14 and opposite side exterior wide view or spotter mirrors 16 (FIG. 4). The camera 14 is operable to capture images rearward and sideward of the vehicle that at least partially or substantially encompass the required regulatory field of view for exterior rearview mirrors. The captured images are communicated to a processor and/or display device of the vehicle to display video images of the scene sideward and rearward of the vehicle to the driver of the vehicle while the driver is normally operating the vehicle. ...”); and
a light-transmitting member (Column 8 lines 1-22),
wherein an image of the first region is captured via the half mirror (Column 1 lines 51-67; Figure 6; ‘rearward viewing camera’), and
wherein an image of the second region is captured via the light-transmitting member (Column 5 lines 48-67; Figure 6; ‘forward viewing camera’).
Regarding Claim 2. Claim 2 has similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and is met by the reference as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of anticipations as used in the rejection to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9. Baur discloses a movable apparatus comprising:
the image capturing apparatus according to claim 1 (please see the rejection to claim 1 above); and
a display unit configured to display an image that has been captured by the image capturing apparatus (Column 3 lines 20-36 and Column 5 lines 29-47; Figures 6-8; “(31) The present invention (and such as can be seen with reference to FIGS. 6-8) provides a display system having a display screen (such as a relatively large display screen) at the A-pillar of the vehicle (such as by utilizing aspects of the display systems described in U.S. Publication No. US-2014-0285666 and/or International Application No. PCT/1616/52601, filed May 6, 2016, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entireties). ... The images displayed may be digitally rendered to make a virtual image of a mirror, complete with incorporation of any of the blind zone features that are used in the mirror.”).
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.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur as applied to claim 1 above, in view of DALLAIRE et al. published on US 20210231926 A1 hereinafter “DALLAIRE”.
Regarding Claim 3. Baur discloses the image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein the at least one image capturing unit comprises an image capturing element and an optical system configured to form an optical image on a light-receiving surface of the image capturing element,
wherein the optical system forms an optical image of a first resolution in a central region of the light-receiving surface of the image capturing element, and forms an optical image of a second resolution, which is a resolution higher than the first resolution, in a peripheral region surrounding the central region, and
wherein the optical system forms, in the peripheral region, at least an optical image of the first region.
DALLAIRE, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows wherein the at least one image capturing unit comprises an image capturing element and an optical system configured to form an optical image on a light-receiving surface of the image capturing element (0021-0022 and 0025-0026; Figures 1, 4 and 5),
wherein the optical system forms an optical image of a first resolution in a central region of the light-receiving surface of the image capturing element, and forms an optical image of a second resolution, which is a resolution higher than the first resolution, in a peripheral region surrounding the central region (0021-0022 and 0025-0026; Figures 1, 4 and 5), and
wherein the optical system forms, in the peripheral region, at least an optical image of the first region (0021-0022 and 0025-0026; Figures 1, 4 and 5; wherein the spatial degree angle of view increase with coinciding higher resolutions – regions comparatively).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the different resolution on the different area of the display for the different image capturing region as shows by DALLAIRE in the in-vehicle image capturing method using the half-mirror of the vehicle of Baur in order to include comparative resolution of the image captured.
Regarding Claims 4-5. Claims 4-5 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the reference as discussed above, and rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claims 1-3 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur in view of DALLAIRE as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Parat published on US 20180022278 A1 hereinafter “Parat”.
Regarding Claims 6-7. Baur in view of DALLAIRE shows the image capturing apparatus according to claim 3, but failed to show wherein the second region includes a region in the direction of a road surface relative to the movable apparatus,
wherein the optical system forms, in the peripheral region, an optical image of at least the region in the direction of the road surface within the second region, and
wherein the optical system forms, in the peripheral region, an optical image of at least one of a front wheel or a rear wheel of the movable apparatus and an optical image of a road surface, each included in the second region.
Parat, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows wherein the second region includes a region in the direction of a road surface relative to the movable apparatus (0043-0045; Figures 3-4),
wherein the optical system forms, in the peripheral region, an optical image of at least the region in the direction of the road surface within the second region (0043-0045; Figures 3-4), and
wherein the optical system forms, in the peripheral region, an optical image of at least one of a front wheel or a rear wheel of the movable apparatus and an optical image of a road surface, each included in the second region (0043-0045; Figures 3-4; “[0043] FIG. 3 shows an exemplary aspect of system 300 wherein camera 307 is positioned at the side-view mirror assembly 312 of vehicle 309. As can be seen, camera 307 is mounted to the front, forward-facing side of mirror assembly 312 and may be directed towards the location 313 at which the corresponding front tire 314 of vehicle 309 and its respective underlying road surface 315 meet. ...”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the capturing of the road surface on the direction of the vehicle moving direction or opposite to the direction of the vehicle moving direction that includes the front or the rear wheel of the vehicle as shown in Parat in in-vehicle image capturing method using the half-mirror of the vehicle of Baur in view of imaging capturing apparatus that is capable of performing different resolution of DALLAIRE in order to increase the perception of the road condition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zaharia published on US 11718270 B2 hereinafter “Zaharia”, and further in view of Falb et al. published on US 20210178986 A1 hereinafter “Falb”
Regarding Claim 8. Baur discloses the image capturing apparatus according to claim 1, but failed to disclose the apparatus comprising:
an angle adjustment mechanism configured to rotate with respect to the movable apparatus; and
at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a processing unit configured to crop a part of a region from an image captured by the image capturing apparatus according to an amount of the rotation.
Zaharia, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows the image capturing apparatus comprising:
an angle adjustment mechanism configured to rotate with respect to the movable apparatus (column 5 line 49 – column 6 line 9; Figures 1-5; “(29) The side mirror 102 may include an attachment arm 206, in an embodiment. The attachment arm 206 may include a first portion (or “first end”) that is continuous with the mirror housing 202 and a second end (or “second portion”) that is configured to attach the side mirror to the vehicle 104. More specifically, the attachment arm 206 may connect the mirror housing 202 to the vehicle 104. ...”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the angle adjustment option when rotating the side view mirror camera as shown by Zaharia in the in-vehicle image capturing method using the half-mirror of the vehicle of Baur in order to include the camera capability of capturing in a desired position that would benefit in the increasing the safety of the vehicle operation and minimize unseen collision.
Baur in view of Zaharia further failed to show at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a processing unit configured to crop a part of a region from an image captured by the image capturing apparatus according to an amount of the rotation.
Falb, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows at least one processor or circuit configured to function as:
a processing unit configured to crop a part of a region from an image captured by the image capturing apparatus according to an amount of the rotation (0020-0021 and 0025-0026; Figures 3 and 6).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the image cropping process as shown by Falb in the in vehicle image capturing apparatus of Baur in view of Zaharia in order to focus only the desired information and reduce the cost of image processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482