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 the Claims
Claims 5-13 and 16-20 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 5 and 16 being independent. Claims 1-4 have been withdrawn and claims 14 and 15 have been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 5-13 and 16-20) and Species II (embodiment of Fig. 9) in the reply filed on 18 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 18 May 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following interpretations are being applied to the claimed limitations:
A room mirror of a vehicle is being interpreted as a rearview mirror.
Paragraph 2 of applicant’s disclosure sets forth “A vehicle may be mounted with left and right mirrors and a room mirror (rearview mirror) to check a rear state of the vehicle to provide driving convenience and stability, and each of these mirrors may be adjusted to various angles based on the body type and driving habit of a driver, thus providing the driver with a secured rear view”.
A digital room mirror is being interpreted as room mirror (rear view mirror) capable of displaying digital information, such as that illustrated in figures 11-13.
Paragraphs 82-84 set forth “Mirror mode (FIG. 4(a)) is a mode for reflecting the rear situation as the mirror like a traditional room mirror without using a digital function, and reflecting the physical situation inside and behind the vehicle as it is like the general mirror while the digital display is turned off...The mirror display mode (FIG. 4(b)) is a hybrid mode for coupling the functions of the mirror and the digital display to each other. In this mode, some of the mirror functions may be maintained even when the digital display is turned on, and the driver may thus use the reflection function of the mirror while viewing the rear situation through the digital screen... For example, in the mirror display mode (FIG. 4(b)), the object (e.g., character) may be expressed while maintaining the reflection function of the general mirror, like a screen 200a displayed on the digital room mirror of FIG. 7....The LCD mode (FIG. 4(c)) may function to display the image captured by the rear camera 161 in real time on the LCD display. In this mode, the digital screen may use an entire area, and provide the driver with more information than the physical mirror through the wide viewing angle of the rear camera. The LCD mode may be useful in a dark environment or a situation where the viewing angle is limited, and the driver may see the rear situation clearly through the image from the camera”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: as sensor unit configured to in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 5 and 16 recite displaying a guide line on the digital room mirror by a control unit of the vehicle if the measured speed of the vehicle is a predetermined speed or more”. However, the originally filed specification does not appear to set forth displaying a single guideline when the measured speed of the vehicle is greater than or equal to a reference speed.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 17 should recite “are displayed on the digital room mirror”, since a room mirror has not been previously defined in the claims.
Claim 6 should recite “...of the vehicle being driven”, since claim 5 has been amended to recite “being driving”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 5 and 16, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
How a single guide line is displayed in response the measured speed being greater than the predetermined reference speed? The disclosure appears to discuss and illustrate displaying a pair of guidelines in response to the speed being greater than the reference speed. For instance, paragraph 106 sets forth “If the measured speed of the vehicle is the predetermined first reference speed or more (Yes in S22), the control unit 11 may display first guide lines LG and RG on the digital room mirror as shown in FIG. 11”. Paragraph 108 recites “The pair of first guide lines LG and RG generated on room mirror 200c in fig. 11...”
What is meant by detecting another vehicle approaching the vehicle being driven and how is the guideline adjusted when the another vehicle is approaching the vehicle being driven. For instance, if the other vehicle is approaching the car from the front or side, how are the guidelines displayed and adjusted?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend. Note: Claim 6 for instance, would address the first portion of the rejection (guide line).
With respect to claims 7 and 18, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to if the another approaching vehicle is detected is the same “another vehicle approaching” in claim 5 or if it is a different vehicle. Is the detecting another approaching vehicle in claim 18 the same as or different than the approaching vehicle in claim 16? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 10, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by “determining whether a lane marking change signal of the vehicle being driven is detected if another vehicle is detected”. How does the if another vehicle detected fit within the claim scope? Is the another vehicle a new vehicle or the approaching vehicle of claim 5? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 19, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what “the guidelines”’ are referencing. Claim 16 displays “a guide line”, claim 17 displays a “pair of first guide lines”, and claim 18 displays “a plurality of pairs of guide lines”. Furthermore, with respect to the first pair of guide lines, the claim restates what is recited in claim 17, but in a different fashion “being driven” vs. “in driving”. How does the second pair of guide lines align with the guide line and plurality of pairs of guide lines? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claim 8 recites similar subject matter as to that of claim 19 and is also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 19.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims, claims 5-13 and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Publication 2002/0167589 to Schofield teaches displaying graphic overlays, such as grid markings to indicate distances on a review mirror, see for instance, paragraphs 50 and 80 and fig. 6
US PG Publication 2023/0099481 to Vuda et al. teaches displaying boundary regions on a rearview mirror and identifying vehicles following the car in the boundary region, see for instance, paragraph 101 and fig. 14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights