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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner notes the features of displaying the speed and/or distance of an adjacent/nearby/approaching vehicle are notoriously well known in the art:
US 20200282908 (para 55)
US 20160284218 (para 32)
US 20050259033 (para 36, 40, Fig 6)
US 20060290482 (para 160)
US 20140277940 (para 31)
Additionally the examine notes the display of information whether rearview, heads-up display, forward console are all obvious modifications in order to provide information visible to the driver
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 11-12 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumon, US 20170174133 in view of EJIRI, US 20160284218 and Pearce, US 20180079463.
PNG
media_image1.png
228
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed display module…is met by vehicle display 20 (Fig 1) which may correspond to an inner (inside) rearview mirror (para 28, 36-37 and 43)
The claimed processor..is met by processing unit 10 (Fig 1) which receives driving information (Fig 3) which adjusts the angle of view by cropping the rear image (Fig 6a)to first size when driving in the forward direction, and Fig 6B when traveling in the reverse direction where a wider angle view is shown.
However, Kumon does not explicitly recite the conventional features of displaying the speed or distance of an adjacent (nearby/approaching) vehicle, although discloses the displaying of useful information to driver (para 45, 48, 49).
The examiner incorporates EJIRI, US 20160284218 which discloses such conventional features (para 32) with respect to an adjacent (side) vehicle(s) with respect to the driving vehicle.
The motivation to modify Kumon with EJIRI would provide important information regarding the driving vehicle by displaying vehicle information together with adjacent vehicle speed or distance, to ensure the driver was aware of the immediate surroundings to ensure a safe vehicle operation, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding the “analysis” it is noted that EJIRI discloses distance measurement camera” and analyzing captured images (para 27-29), but does not explicitly recite analyzing the captured images to determine the speed or distance.
The examiner evidences Pearce, US 20180079463 which discloses that the speed, distance of approaching vehicles can be performed by sensors but also preferably a camera by image processing an analysis of the image(s) (para 49).
The motivation to modify the above combination with Pearce would provide the combination the ability to detect the speed or distance of nearby/approaching/adjacent vehicles using a known sensor/technology such as cameras image analysis to ensure the safety of the driver/vehicle thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2,
Kumon discloses the angle of view changes based upon whether the vehicle is in Reverse gear or not (para 26, 30-31 and 50) that changes the angle/field of view the different display modes (forward smaller and reverse larger angle) (para 25, 42-45).
Regarding speed see claim 1 with the incorporation EJIRI.
In considering claim 5,
Kumon as shown discloses when in reverse, the display changes from Fig 6a to 6b, where 6b includes a shift in downward angle (para 43) and an expanded as shown to include a wider angle view (para 25, 45 and 53).
In considering claim 6,
Kumon disclose the driving information (when in reverse or not) is received from the vehicle when the transmission level (shift lever) is in the on “reverse” or other position (para 26, 30-31, 47 and 50).
In considering claim 11,
Refer to claim 1.
In considering claim 12,
Refer to claim 2.
In considering claim 15,
Refer to claim 5.
In considering claim 16,
Refer to claim 6.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumon, US 20170174133, EJIRI, US 20160284218 and Pearce, US 20180079463 and JUN, US 20240420486.
The examiner notes the combination does not explicitly disclose the features of changing the view based upon speed and a threshold and steering angle a threshold.
However, the examiner notes JUN which discloses the based upon the speed exceeding a threshold and with a steering angle exceeding a threshold would increase , the display (para 12, 22, 111, Fig 2), and thus when those parameters (speed or steering angle) were less than the threshold the normal region display (Fig 3, 5-10).
The examiner notes JUN discloses the vehicle speed, where the incorporated EJIRI disclosed other/adjacent/nearby/approaching vehicle speeds.
The motivation of the combination would ensure a proper display taking into account driving conditions of the host vehicle and surrounding vehicles to ensure the driver has the desired view taking into account the vehicle parameters to ensure a safe vehicle operation, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4, 8-10, 14 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumon, US 20170174133, EJIRI, US 20160284218 and Pearce, US 20180079463 in view of Rajhansa et al., US 2022/0141364.
In considering claim 4,
Kumon discloses centering a display (as shown Fig 2, display 20, centered portion 22a).
However Kumon/combination (EJIRI, PEARCE) does not explicitly recite steering direction and the centering of the display in accordance with, however, Rajhansa does disclose such conventional features (para 15-16, 18, 20-21) which centers the display in accordance with the steering direction, which also adjust the angle of view of the camera.
The motivation to modify Kumon combination with Rajhansa would provide the advantage of centering a display in accordance with the travel direction thus providing a enhance view of the surrounding and ensuring a safe display/operating environment for the driver/vehicle, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 8,
Kumon discloses the processor receives the rear view video from the camera (Fig 1), which is adjusted based upon the direction of travel (reverse) where when in reverse and larger image, which is angled downward and a wider FOV is provided (Fig 6b), however Kumon does not explicitly recite the “detect a portion”.
Rajhansa does disclose and adaptable FOV where a sub-set (portion) of a captured image can be detected/processed (para 17-21) which is based upon a steering direction of the vehicle.
The motivation to modify Kumon with Rajhansa would provide the ability to adapt the FOV (which both do) but to also detect a portion of a captured image as done by Rajhansa which increases the enhancement visibility rearward of the vehicle as taught by Rajhansa (para 5) thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 9,
Kumon discloses (Fig 2) that the processor receives images captured by the camera, and that the processing functions (a portion or all) may be realized by a processing unit inside the camera (para 24), the processor 10 may control the camera by incorporating processing functions inside the camera.
Regarding capturing the video according to the angle of view, as noted above Kumon discloses cropping or not the captured video, where it is also conventional to adjust the FOV of a camera as done by Rajhansa (para 15-16, 22-24) which allows the vehicle to change the FOV to ensure proper rearward views of object (para 5), thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the FOV of the camera in certain driving conditions (reverse, steering direction) to ensure a safe rearward view for the driver
In considering claim 10,
Kumon discloses a rear camera 40 (Fig 1) which captured the rear view video,
and where Kumon disclose the processor 10 may also be incorporated (partially or fully) into camera 40, which processes the different captured images based upon driving condition (reverse) which changes the angle of view.
Regarding the transmit the angle of view to the camera device by Rajhansa (para 15-16, 22-24) which allows the vehicle to change the FOV to ensure proper rearward views of object (para 5), thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the FOV of the camera and display in certain driving conditions (reverse, steering direction) to ensure a safe rearward view for the driver.
In considering claim 14,
Refer to claim 4.
In considering claim 18,
Refer to claim 8.
In considering claim 19,
Refer to claim 9.
In considering claim 20,
Refer to claim 10.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumon, US 20170174133, EJIRI, US 20160284218 and Pearce, US 20180079463 in view of YANAGISAWA et al., US 20250201115.
Kumon combination does not explicitly recite the conventional features of communication module to receive location information of a vehicle.
The examiner incorporates YANAGISAWA (para 42) which discloses such well known features: the system includes a communication device 20 (Fig 1) which receives location information (via 24) and includes a detection means 22 which detects the location and then acquires the speed of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image2.png
121
313
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The motivation to modify Kumon combination with YANAGISAWA would provide the vehicle the ability to determine the speed of the vehicle using know applications such as GPS/GNSS which allows the user to plan a trip/destination and thus ensure a safe driving route, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited reference on attached form PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422