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 .
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-20, received 9/24/2024, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-3, 10, 12-14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0239398 A1 (hereafter Kaplan) in view of Hopkins, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0381938 A1 (hereafter Hopkins).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Kaplan discloses a system and associated method (see at least the abstract) comprising:
a controller (see at least element 102 and/or 110);
a mirror assembly electrically connected to the controller (see at least elements 118, 126, 128), wherein:
the mirror is configured to move (see at least the abstract), and
the controller is configured to control movement of the mirror (see at least para. [0014]); and
a sensor electrically connected to the controller and configured to collect data associated with a driver of a vehicle (see at least element 120, para. [0020], and/or element 122, para. [0021]);
wherein the controller is configured to:
receive the data associated with the driver (see at least elements 102, 110, 120, 122, 304, 318 paras. [0016], [0020]-[0021], [0023]-[0027], [0029]),
determine a set of physical characteristics of the driver based on the data (see at least element 314, para. [0028]), and
automatically move the mirror from a first position to a second position based on the set of physical characteristics of the driver (see at least paras. [0014], [0019], [0027], [0030]).
Although this feature is well-known in the mirror arts, Kaplan does not specifically disclose that the mirror assembly includes a housing and the mirror is disposed within the housing, and that the mirror is configured to move relative to the housing.
However, Hopkins is related to Kaplan since both Hopkins and Kaplan disclose vehicle mirror adjustment systems (see at least the title and abstracts of Hopkins and Kaplan), wherein Hopkins teaches that a mirror assembly includes a housing and the mirror is disposed within the housing, and that the mirror is configured to move relative to the housing (see at least para. [0014] of Hopkins).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaplan to include the teachings of Hopkins so that the mirror assembly includes a housing and the mirror is disposed within the housing, wherein the mirror is configured to move relative to the housing, for the purpose of using a well-known mirror adjustment structure to move a mirror within a housing to adjust a reflection angle of the mirror.
Regarding claim 13, the method steps claimed result from the claimed apparatus limitations recited in claim 1, based on the rejection/combination of Kaplan in view of Hopkins for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Kaplan in view of Hopkins discloses the system of claim 1, and wherein the data associated with the driver of the vehicle includes at least one of: a position of a seat of the driver or an angle of a seat back of the seat (see at least paras. [0029], [0036], [0053], [0068], [0086] of Kaplan).
Regarding claim 3, Kaplan in view of Hopkins discloses the system of claim 1, and wherein the set of physical characteristics includes at least one of: an initial location of at least one eye of the driver, an angle of the at least one eye relative to the sensor, a height of the driver, or a distance of the at least one eye from the sensor (see at least paras. [0014], [0020]-[0021], [0024]-[0028], [0033], [0035]-[0041] of Kaplan).
Regarding claim 10, Kaplan in view of Hopkins discloses the system of claim 1, and wherein the system includes a second mirror assembly having a second mirror; and the controller is configured to automatically adjust a position of the second mirror based on the set of physical characteristics of the driver by moving the second mirror from a first position to a second position (see at least elements 126, 128, paras. [0014], [0019], [0032]-[0033] of Kaplan).
Regarding claim 12, Kaplan in view of Hopkins discloses the system of claim 1, and a vehicle having a steering wheel, wherein the sensor is disposed proximate the steering wheel. (see at least para. [0020] of Kaplan).
Regarding claim 14, Kaplan in view of Hopkins discloses the method of claim 13, and wherein the sensor is disposed proximate a steering wheel of the vehicle (see at least para. [0020] of Kaplan); and the set of physical characteristics includes at least one of: an initial location of at least one eye of the driver, an angle of the at least one eye relative to the sensor, a height of the driver, or a distance of the driver from the sensor (see at least paras. [0014], [0020]-[0021], [0024]-[0028], [0033], [0035]-[0041] of Kaplan).
Regarding claim 19, Kaplan in view of Hopkins discloses the method of claim 13, and automatically adjusting, via the controller a position of a second mirror based on the set of physical characteristics of the driver by moving the second mirror from a first position to a second position (see at least elements 126, 128, paras. [0014], [0019], [0032]-[0033] of Kaplan).
Claims 4, 7, 8, 15, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0239398 A1 (hereafter Kaplan) in view of Hopkins, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0381938 A1 (hereafter Hopkins) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Korti, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2026/0021763 A1 (hereafter Korti).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Kaplan in view of Hopkins discloses the system/method of claims 1 and 13, and wherein the controller is configured to: determine an initial location of at least one eye of the driver (see at least paras. [0014], [0020]-[0021], [0024]-[0028], [0033], [0035]-[0041] of Kaplan); determine an angle of the at least one eye of the driver relative to the sensor based on the initial location (see at least paras. [0014], [0020]-[0021], [0024]-[0028], [0033], [0035]-[0041] of Kaplan), and determine a distance of the driver from the sensor based on the angle of the at least one eye of the driver to define the set of physical characteristics of the driver (see at least paras. [0014], [0020]-[0021], [0024]-[0028], [0033], [0035]-[0041] of Kaplan).
Kaplan in view of Hopkins does not specifically disclose that the controller is configured to determine a height of the driver.
However, Korti is related to Kaplan since both Korti and Kaplan disclose vehicle mirror adjustment systems (see at least the title and abstracts of Korti and Kaplan), wherein Korti teaches an automated mirror positioning system wherein a height of the driver is determined so that the mirror position is adjusted to maximize visibility of a desired environment for the driver (see at least paras. [0018], [0032] of Korti).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaplan in view of Hopkins to include the teachings of Korti so that the controller is configured to determine a height of the driver to define the set of physical characteristics of the driver, for the purpose of adjusting a mirror position to maximize visibility of a desired environment for the driver based on a determined height characteristic of the driver.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Kaplan in view of Hopkins discloses the system/method of claims 1 and 13, and the controller is configured to determine the second position based on the set of physical characteristics of the driver (see at least elements 306, 314, 316, paras. [0027]-[0030] of Kaplan); the second position is different than the first position (see at least elements 306, 314, 316, paras. [0027]-[0030] of Kaplan).
Kaplan does not explicitly disclose that the driver has an obstructed view when the mirror is in the first position; and the second position accommodates for the set of physical characteristics of the driver such that the driver has an unobstructed view when the mirror is in the second position.
However, Korti further teaches an automated mirror positioning system wherein physical characteristics of the driver are taken into account to adjust a mirror position from an obstructed first view to an unobstructed view in a second position (see at least paras. [0004], [0018], [0036], [0040], [0046], [0059], [0066], [0082], [0094]-[0096] of Korti).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaplan in view of Hopkins to include the teachings of Korti so that when a driver has an obstructed view when the mirror is in the first position, the second position accommodates for the set of physical characteristics of the driver such that the driver has an unobstructed view when the mirror is in the second position, for the purpose of adjusting a mirror position to maximize visibility, reduce blind spots and increase safety (Korti, para. [0094]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Kaplan in view of Hopkins does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to use a machine learned model to determine the second position of the mirror; wherein the machine learned model is configured to use at least one of the data from the sensor or the set of physical characteristics as an input.
However, Korti further teaches a mirror positioning system wherein an AI model, such as machine learning, to use sensors to detect head movements of the driver so that a mirror may be adjusted to desired orientations (see at least the abstract, paras. [0019], [0037], [0046], [0048], [0062]-[0063], [0093]-[0096] of Korti).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaplan in view of Hopkins to include the teachings of Korti so that the controller is configured to use a machine learned model to determine the second position of the mirror; wherein the machine learned model is configured to use at least one of the data from the sensor or the set of physical characteristics as an input, for the purpose of using a machine learning model to adjust a mirror position to maximize visibility, reduce blind spots and increase safety.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0239398 A1 (hereafter Kaplan) in view of Hopkins, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0381938 A1 (hereafter Hopkins) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamagawa et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,621,062 B1 (hereafter Tamagawa).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kaplan in view of Hopkins does not specifically disclose that the first position of the mirror is associated with a default position, or that the default position is associated with a determined angle of the mirror relative to a traffic line located proximate the vehicle.
However, Tamagawa is related to Kaplan since both Tamagawa and Kaplan disclose vehicle mirror adjustment systems (see at least the title and abstracts of Tamagawa and Kaplan), wherein Tamagawa teaches that it is known in vehicle mirror controlling systems that a mirror may be positioned in a default position which is associated with a determined angle of the mirror relative to a traffic line located proximate the vehicle (see at least column 1, lines 17-28 of Tamagawa).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaplan in view of Hopkins to include the teachings of Tamagawa so that the first position of the mirror is associated with a default position, wherein the default position may be associated with a determined angle of the mirror relative to a traffic line located proximate the vehicle, for the purpose of having a rear-view mirror of a vehicle have any desired tilt angle such that obstacles around the vehicle may be visible to a driver of the vehicle and/or so that the tilt angle of the mirror may assist the driver of the vehicle with parking.
Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0239398 A1 (hereafter Kaplan) in view of Hopkins, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0381938 A1 (hereafter Hopkins) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Tamagawa et al., U.S. Patent Number 6,621,062 B1 (hereafter Tamagawa) and Lutz et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0342926 A1 (hereafter Lutz).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Kaplan in view of Hopkins discloses the system/method of claims 1 and 13, and wherein the system includes a second sensor (see at least element 122, para. [0021] of Kaplan wherein the system may include sensors to collect data regarding the environment of the vehicle and/or location sensors and/or proximity sensors and/or optical sensors).
Kaplan in view of Hopkins does not specifically disclose that the controller is configured to determine a position of the mirror relative to a traffic line located proximate the vehicle based on data from the second sensor.
However, Tamagawa further teaches that it is known in vehicle mirror controlling systems that a mirror may be positioned at an angle for a driver to visualize gutters and/or traffic lines located proximate the vehicle while parking (see at least column 1, lines 17-28 of Tamagawa).
Additionally, Lutz is related to Kaplan since both Lutz and Kaplan disclose vehicle mirror adjustment systems (see at least the title and abstracts of Lutz and Kaplan), wherein Lutz teaches that it is known in vehicle mirror controlling systems that auxiliary sensors may be used as inputs into the mirror change algorithm so that the mirror surface may be positioned at an optimal angle to focus on objects detected by the sensors (see at least para. [0054]-[0055] of Lutz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaplan in view of Hopkins to include the teachings of Tamagawa and Lutz so that the controller is configured to determine a position of the mirror relative to a traffic line located proximate the vehicle based on data from the second sensor, for the purpose of having a rear-view mirror of a vehicle have any desired tilt angle such that obstacles around the vehicle may be visible to a driver of the vehicle and/or so that the tilt angle of the mirror may assist the driver of the vehicle with parking.
Claims 11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0239398 A1 (hereafter Kaplan) in view of Hopkins, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0381938 A1 (hereafter Hopkins) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Salter et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0118715 A1 (hereafter Salter).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Kaplan in view of Hopkins does not specifically disclose that the controller is configured to automatically move the mirror assembly, relative to a body of the vehicle, from an operational configuration to a nonoperational configuration when the vehicle is in at least one of a parked state or an off state.
However, Salter is related to Kaplan since both Salter and Kaplan disclose vehicle mirror adjustment systems (see at least the title and abstracts of Salter and Kaplan), wherein Salter teaches that it is known in vehicle mirror controlling systems that mirrors may be moved from an operational configuration to a nonoperational configuration wherein the mirror is folded against a vehicle exterior when the vehicle is in a parked state (see at least paras. [0002], [0045] of Salter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaplan in view of Hopkins to include the teachings of Salter so that the controller is configured to automatically move the mirror assembly, relative to a body of the vehicle, from an operational configuration to a nonoperational configuration when the vehicle is in at least one of a parked state or an off state, for the purpose of protecting the mirror from damage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8/19/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights