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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 05, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on a newly discover art of Kothari applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. US 2023/0415652 further in view of Kothari US 2017/0013188.
In regarding to claim 1 Wada teaches:
1. A video processing system connected to a front camera module and a rear camera module configured to capture a front view video and a rear view video of a vehicle, respectively, the video processing system comprising: a digital rear mirror module configured to display the rear view video in the vehicle;
[0257] The digital rear mirror 234 is used instead of a conventional rear view mirror and is also referred to as a smart room mirror. As illustrated in FIG. 13, similarly to the conventional rearview mirror, the digital rear mirror 234 is provided at the upper end of the windshield 204 and slightly in front of the vicinity of the center, and is disposed above the center portion 231C of the center display 231.
[0258] The digital rear mirror 234 displays, for example, an image behind the vehicle 1 captured by the camera 51BC2. For example, in a case where another vehicle is approaching behind the vehicle 1, the digital rear mirror 234 displays an alert.
Wada, 0141-0143, 0154-0155, 0257-0258 and Fig. 2, emphasis added
a memory configured to store the front view video and the rear view video;
[0103] The recording unit 28 includes, for example, a read only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), a magnetic storage device such as a hard disc drive (HDD), a semiconductor storage device, an optical storage device, a magneto-optical storage device, and the like. The recording unit 28 records various programs, data, and the like used by each unit of the vehicle control system 11. For example, the recording unit 28 records a rosbag file including a message transmitted and received by a robot operating system (ROS) in which an application program related to automated driving operates. For example, the recording unit 28 includes an event data recorder (EDR) and a data storage system for automated driving (DSSAD), and records information of the vehicle 1 before and after an event such as an accident.
Wada, 0103 and Fig. 1, emphasis added.
and a processor connected to the digital rear mirror module and the memory, and configured to transmit the front view video and the rear view video from the front camera module and the rear camera module to the memory, and to transmit the rear view video from the rear camera module to the digital rear mirror module,
[0257] The digital rear mirror 234 is used instead of a conventional rear view mirror and is also referred to as a smart room mirror. As illustrated in FIG. 13, similarly to the conventional rearview mirror, the digital rear mirror 234 is provided at the upper end of the windshield 204 and slightly in front of the vicinity of the center, and is disposed above the center portion 231C of the center display 231.
[0258] The digital rear mirror 234 displays, for example, an image behind the vehicle 1 captured by the camera 51BC2. For example, in a case where another vehicle is approaching behind the vehicle 1, the digital rear mirror 234 displays an alert.
Wada, 0141-0143, 0154-0155, 0257-0258, emphasis added
wherein the video processing system includes a first electronic device including the digital rear mirror module mounted at a predetermined location in the vehicle, wherein the first electronic device is accommodated in a housing such that the digital rear mirror module faces the rear of the vehicle,
[0257] The digital rear mirror 234 is used instead of a conventional rear view mirror and is also referred to as a smart room mirror. As illustrated in FIG. 13, similarly to the conventional rearview mirror, the digital rear mirror 234 is provided at the upper end of the windshield 204 and slightly in front of the vicinity of the center, and is disposed above the center portion 231C of the center display 231.
[0258] The digital rear mirror 234 displays, for example, an image behind the vehicle 1 captured by the camera 51BC2. For example, in a case where another vehicle is approaching behind the vehicle 1, the digital rear mirror 234 displays an alert.
Wada, 0257-0258 and Fig. 2, emphasis added
However, Wada fails to explicitly teach, but Kothari teaches: and the front camera module is mounted on a rear surface of the first electronic device and accommodated within the housing to face the front of the vehicle.
[0236] According to an embodiment of the present invention, the said base plate 2004 embedded on the smart device holder 2002 of the sun visor can also have holes on it, wherein if the smart device 2014 is mounted or attached to the smart device holder 2002 of the sun visor 2016, and the smart device's camera is aligned to match the said base plate's hole, then it would also allow visibility of the external area in front of the vehicle using that hole. In this embodiment of the present invention, behind the said base plate of the smart device holder of the sun visor, there would also be another solid plate or a layer of the sun visor itself such that the hole on the said base plate would usually remain covered. However, when the smart device is mounted or attached on the smart device holder of the sun visor, then the solid plate or the layer of sun visor behind the said base plate's hole would be automatically moved such that the hole would no longer be covered and would allow the mounted smart device's camera to view the external area in front of the vehicle. Along the same lines, when the smart device is later unmounted or removed from the smart device holder of the sun visor, then the solid plate or the layer of sun visor behind the said base plate's hole would automatically move again such that the hole on the said base plate gets covered and doesn't allow the see through functionality.
Kothari, 0236-0237, 0294, emphasis added.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Kothari with the system of Wada in order the front camera module is mounted on a rear surface of the first electronic device and accommodated within the housing to face the front of the vehicle, as such, the sun visor system including a camera capable of recording front of the vehicle for any events present at the time.
In regarding to claim 2 Wada and Kothari teaches:
2. The video processing system of claim 1, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the video processing system includes a second electronic device including the memory and the processor provided separate from the first electronic device.
Wada, 0081-0082, 0083, 0230-0232 and Fig. 13
In regarding to claim 4 Wada and Kothari teaches:
4. The video processing system of claim 2, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the video processing system is connected to an internal camera module configured to capture an internal video of the vehicle, and the processor is connected to the internal camera module, and configured to transmit the internal video to the memory such that the memory stores the internal video.
Wada, 0142-0143, 0178
In regarding to claim 5 Wada and Kothari teaches:
5. The video processing system of claim 4, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the internal camera module is mounted to the first electronic device to face the inside of the vehicle.
Wada, 0142-0143, 0178, 0206
In regarding to claim 6 Wada and Kothari teaches:
6. The video processing system of claim 2, furthermore, Wada teaches: further comprising: an interface module connected between the front camera module and the rear camera module and the processor, and configured to transmit the front view video and the rear view video from the front camera module and the rear camera module to the processor, wherein the second electronic device includes the interface module with the memory and the processor.
Wada, 0081-0082, 0083, 0230-0232 and Fig. 13
In regarding to claim 7 Wada and Kothari teaches:
7. The video processing system of claim 1, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the video processing system is implemented with a single electronic device including the first electronic device mounted at the predetermined location in the vehicle.
Wada, 0257-0258 and Fig. 13
In regarding to claim 8 Wada and Kothari teaches:
8. The video processing system of claim 7, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the electronic device is accommodated in the housing such that the digital rear mirror module faces the rear of the vehicle.
Wada, 0257-0258 and Fig. 13
In regarding to claim 9 Wada and Kothari teaches:
9. The video processing system of claim 7, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the video processing system is connected to an internal camera module configured to capture an internal video of the vehicle, and the processor is connected to the internal camera module, and configured to transmit the internal video to the memory such that the memory stores the internal video.
Wada, 0142-0143, 0178
In regarding to claim 10 Wada and Kothari teaches:
10. The video processing system of claim 9, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the electronic device is accommodated in the housing such that the digital rear mirror module faces the rear of the vehicle,
Wada, 0257-0258
Claim 11 list all similar elements of claim 1, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 11.
In regarding to claim 12 Wada and Kothari teaches:
12. The operating method of claim 11, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the video processing system includes a second electronic device provided separate from the first electronic device,
Wada, 0081-0082, 0083, 0230-0232 and Fig. 13
and the receiving the front view video and the rear view video, and the storing the front view video and the rear view video is performed by the second electronic device, and the displaying the rear view video on the digital rear mirror module is performed by the first electronic device.
Wada, 0081-0082, 0083, 0230-0232 and Fig. 13
In regarding to claim 13 Wada and Kothari teaches:
13. The operating method of claim 12, furthermore, Wada teaches: further comprising: transmitting, by the second electronic device, the rear view video to the first electronic device.
Wada, 0081-0082, 0083, 0230-0232 and Fig. 13
Claims 15-16 list all similar elements of claims 4-5, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 4-5 applies equally as well to claims 15-16.
In regarding to claim 17 Wada and Kothari teaches:
17. The operating method of claim 11, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the video processing system is implemented with a single electronic device including the first electronic device mounted at the predetermined location in the vehicle.
Wada, 0257-0258 and Fig. 13
In regarding to claim 18 Wada and Kothari teaches:
18. The operating method of claim 17, furthermore, Wada teaches: wherein the electronic device is accommodated in a housing such that the digital rear mirror module faces the rear of the vehicle
Wada, 0257-0258 and Fig. 13
Claims 19-20 list all similar elements of claims 9-10, but in method form rather than system form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 9-10 applies equally as well to claims 19-20.
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 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. US 2023/0415652 and Kothari US 2017/0013188.
In regarding to claim 21 Wada and Kothari teaches:
21. (New) The video processing system of claim 1, however, Wada and Kothari fails to explicitly teaches: further comprising an internal camera module configured to capture an internal video of the vehicle, wherein the internal camera module is mounted at a bottom of the first electronic device and accommodated within the housing to face an inside of the vehicle, wherein the memory includes a detachable memory configured to be detachable from the first electronic device, and wherein the detachable memory is inserted into the housing and separated from the housing. Official Notice is taken that both the concept and the advantage of implementing further comprising an internal camera module configured to capture an internal video of the vehicle, wherein the internal camera module is mounted at a bottom of the first electronic device and accommodated within the housing to face an inside of the vehicle, wherein the memory includes a detachable memory configured to be detachable from the first electronic device, and wherein the detachable memory is inserted into the housing and separated from the housing are well known and expected in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize said feature with said system taught by Wada and Kothari, because such incorporation would result in selective area of recording with easy mobile memory that can be replace at user conveniency.
In regarding to claim 22 Wada and Kothari teaches:
22. (New) The video processing system of claim 1, however, Wada and Kothari fails to explicitly teaches: wherein the video processing system includes a second electronic device provided separate from the first electronic device, wherein the second electronic device acts as a digital video recording device and includes the memory and the processor, and wherein the processor is configured to: receive the front view video and the rear view video, store the front view video and the rear view video in the memory without resolution adjustment, adjust a resolution of the rear view video to correspond to a resolution of a display area of the digital rear mirror module, and transmit the resolution-adjusted rear view video to the first electronic device. Official Notice is taken that both the concept and the advantage of implementing wherein the video processing system includes a second electronic device provided separate from the first electronic device, wherein the second electronic device acts as a digital video recording device and includes the memory and the processor, and wherein the processor is configured to: receive the front view video and the rear view video, store the front view video and the rear view video in the memory without resolution adjustment, adjust a resolution of the rear view video to correspond to a resolution of a display area of the digital rear mirror module, and transmit the resolution-adjusted rear view video to the first electronic device are well known and expected in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to utilize said feature with said system taught by Wada and Kothari, because such incorporation would result in presenting an electronic device able to record and adjust displaying resolution according to processing system which help avoids stagnant image during playback.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL T TEKLE whose telephone number is (571)270-1117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/DANIEL T TEKLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights