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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 31 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 31 and 34 both claim “image date”; this is a typo and should be “image data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-22, 32, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endress et al. (German Patent Application Publication DE-102018207388). All text citations refer to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 18, Endress discloses a method for operating an image data processing device of a vision system of a vehicle, comprising: receiving image data captured by at least one imaging device (paragraph 35 teaches receiving image data from a camera); receiving a condition-signal indicating a day-time condition or a night-time condition (paragraph 52 teaches determining the brightness of the captured image to determine if the image is captured in a day or night condition); and processing the received image data dependent on the received condition-signal (paragraph 52 teaches adjusting the tone mapping based on the condition in which the image is captured).
Regarding claim 19, Endress discloses the method according to claim 18, in addition, Endress discloses wherein: the image data comprises rearward view image data captured aside and/or behind of the vehicle (paragraph 8 teaches that cameras are for capturing rear, in front or to the side of the vehicle); and/or receiving the condition-signal is generated by a condition device such as a brightness sensor (paragraph 43 teaches using an ambient brightness sensor to detect light); and/or processing the received image data comprises adjusting a contrast and/or a brightness of the received image data (paragraph 9 teaches adjusting the tone mapping which adjust brightness values of the received image); and/or the step of processing differs depending on whether the received condition-signal indicates the day-time condition or the night-time condition (paragraph 52 teaches selecting different tone mapping parameters for night). Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
Regarding claim 20, Endress discloses the method according to claim 18, in addition, Endress discloses wherein the step of processing comprises: adjusting a contrast of the received image data; and/or adjusting a digital gain of the received image data; and/or adjusting a noise filtering the received image data (paragraph 22 teaches adjusting the contrast). Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
Regarding claim 21, Endress discloses the method according to claim 18, in addition, Endress discloses outputting a control-signal for the at least one imaging device dependent on the received condition-signal, wherein the control-signal causes the at least one imaging device to adjust at least one image capture setting of the at least one imaging device (paragraph 41 teaches adjusting image capturing conditions when driving at night).
Regarding claim 22, Endress discloses the method according to claim 21, in addition, Endress receiving a situation-signal indicating a current speed, a gear selection and/or an operating state of the vehicle; and wherein the step of processing is further dependent on the received situation-signal (paragraph 43 teaches selecting processing parameters based on speed, gear, i.e. forward or reverse, and operating state of the vehicle, i.e. steering angle). Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
Regarding claim 32, Endress discloses a vision system for a vehicle, comprising: at least one imaging device configured to capture image data (figure 1 exhibits cameras 7 and 8 as disclosed at paragraph 34); a condition device, wherein the condition device is configured to generate a condition-signal indicating a day-time condition or a night-time condition (paragraph 27 teaches using an external brightness sensors 16 and 17); an image data processing device, wherein the image data processing device is configured to receive the captured image data and the generated condition-signal (figure 1 exhibits processing unit 11 as disclosed at paragraph 35), and is further configured to process the received image data dependent on the received condition-signal (paragraph 52 teaches adjusting the tone mapping based on the condition in which the image is captured).
Regarding claim 35, Endress discloses a vehicle comprising: a vision system according to claim 32 (figure 1 exhibits wherein the system is for a vehicle as disclosed at paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 36, Endress discloses the vehicle according to claim 35, in addition, Endress discloses wherein: the least one imaging device is configured to capture different field of views (each of the left and right cameras exhibited in figure 1 capture different fields of view); and/or the vision system is part of a mirror replacement system of the vehicle (paragraph 52 teaches that the system is part of a mirror replacement system); and/or the vision system is operable to display a surround view of the vehicle’s surroundings on the display device (figure 1 shows that the cameras capture views on the left, right and behind the vehicle and therefore the display view will at least partially surround the vehicle). Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
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.
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endress in view of Choi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0018939), hereinafter referenced as Choi.
Regarding claim 23, Endress discloses the method according to claim 22, however, Endress fails to disclose wherein the step of processing comprises: reducing a contrast, digital gain, and/or brightness of the received image data, when the received situation-signal indicates a long-distance drive of the vehicle (20); and/or increasing a contrast, digital gain, and/or brightness of the received image data, when the received situation-signal indicates a manoeuvring of the vehicle. Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
Choi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Choi teaches a vehicular imaging system wherein the motivation of ensuring that a user can clearly see a vehicle which may enter the user’s driving path allowing a user to better determine is a driving action is safe would have prompted a predictable variation of Endress by applying Choi’s known principal of reducing a contrast, digital gain, and/or brightness of the received image data, when the received situation-signal indicates a long-distance drive of the vehicle (paragraph 62 teaches decreasing the brightness of the image when the vehicle speed is high, a high speed would be indicative of highway driving which is considered a long-distance drive); and/or increasing a contrast, digital gain, and/or brightness of the received image data, when the received situation-signal indicates a manoeuvring of the vehicle (paragraph 72 teaches increasing the brightness of an image to be display in response to detecting a turn manoeuvre of the vehicle as indicated by the turn signal).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that a user can clearly see a vehicle which may enter the user’s driving path allowing a user to better determine is a driving action is safe one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Endress.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, Endress in view of Choi discloses the method according to claim 23, however, Endress fails to disclose selecting an image data processing mode from predefined possible image data processing modes dependent on the received situation-signal; and wherein the step of processing is performed in accordance with the selected image data processing mode.
Choi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Choi teaches a vehicular imaging system wherein the motivation of ensuring the driver can quickly and clearly view surroundings while avoiding driver distraction at times when it is less necessary would have prompted a predictable variation of Endress by applying Choi’s known principal of selecting a bright processing mode when the situation requires it and selecting a dark processing mode when the situations does not require a bright display (paragraph 98 teaches a bright processing mode when a specific condition is detected and otherwise using a normal processing mode).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring the driver can quickly and clearly view surroundings while avoiding driver distraction at times when it is less necessary one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Endress.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 25, Endress in view of Choi discloses the method according to claim 24, however, Endress fails to disclose wherein the predefined possible image data processing modes include: a reverse driving mode; and/or a motorway driving mode; and/or a manoeuvring mode. Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
Choi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Choi teaches a vehicular imaging system wherein the motivation of properly controlling brightness for a variety of situations would have prompted a predictable variation of Endress by applying Choi’s known principal of providing a motorway driving mode (paragraph 62 teaches decreasing the brightness of the image when the vehicle speed is high, a high speed would be indicative of highway driving which is considered a motorway driving mode); and/or a manoeuvring mode (paragraph 72 teaches increasing the brightness of an image to be display in response to detecting a turn manoeuvre of the vehicle as indicated by the turn signal). Becuase of the use of “and/or“ the reverse driving mode is optional and not required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
In view of the motivations such as properly controlling brightness for a variety of situations one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Endress.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26, Endress in view of Choi discloses the method according to claim 25, in addition, Choi discloses wherein: the predefined possible image data processing modes further include a default mode (it is apparent that there is default display mode for when none of the conditions for another mode are met); wherein: the reverse driving mode defines a higher contrast, brightness and/or digital gain compared to the default mode; and/or the motorway driving mode defines a lower contrast, brightness and/or digital gain compared to the default mode (paragraph 62 teaches decreasing the brightness of the image when the vehicle speed is high, a high speed would be indicative of highway driving which is considered a motorway driving mode); and/or the manoeuvring mode defines a higher contrast, brightness and/or digital gain compared to the default mode (paragraph 72 teaches increasing the brightness of an image to be display in response to detecting a turn manoeuvre of the vehicle as indicated by the turn signal). Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
Regarding claim 27, Endress in view of Choi discloses the method according to claim 26, however, Endress fails to disclose wherein: the received image data comprises data relating to different field of views; and the step of processing comprises merging the different field of views in a combined view.
Choi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Choi teaches a vehicular imaging system wherein the motivation of allowing a user to easily view rear views on both sides of the vehicle would have prompted a predictable variation of Endress by applying Choi’s known principal of receiving data relating to different field of views; and merging the different field of views in a combined view (figure 3A exhibits wherein data from cameras on left and right sides are merged into a single display image as disclosed at paragraph 46).
In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to easily view rear views on both sides of the vehicle one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Endress.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endress in view of Choi and further in view of Park (Korean Patent Publication KR-102170191). Note that all citations refer to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 28, Endress in view of Choi discloses the method according to claim 27, however, Endress fails to disclose wherein: relative portions of the different field of views in the combined view are varied depending on the selected image data processing mode.
Park is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Park teaches a vehicular imaging system wherein the motivation of ensuring a user has the best view for the current situation would have prompted a predictable variation of Endress by applying Park’s known principal of varying relative portions of the different field of views in the combined view depending on the selected image data processing mode (figures 6-9 exhibits different varied combinations of images based on the processing mode of normal driving, reversing or turning left or right as disclosed at paragraphs 36-39).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring a user has the best view for the current situation one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Endress.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, Endress in view of Choi and further in view of Park discloses the method according to claim 28, in addition, Endress discloses receiving a display-brightness-signal from a display device, wherein the display-brightness-signal indicates a brightness of a display of the display device (paragraph 42 teaches detecting brightness of the display screen); wherein the step of processing is performed dependent on the received display-brightness-signal (paragraph 42 teaches taking display brightness into account by the processing unit).
Regarding claim 30, Endress in view of Choi and further in view of Park discloses the method according to claim 29, in addition Endress discloses receiving a user-request signal (paragraph 21 teaches that the user can enter the driving situation, this is interpreted as a request for image processing corresponding to the entered driving situation); and adjusting image processing settings dependent on the received user-request signal (because image processing is performed based on the driving situation, it is apparent that image processing settings would be dependent based on the user’s input of a specific driving situation).
Regarding claim 31, Endress in view of Choi and further in view of Park discloses the method according to claim 30, in addition, Endress discloses wherein: the at least one image capture setting is a frame rate, a gain, an exposure time, and/or exposure threshold (paragraph 41 teaches that the exposure time or gain can be adjusted when driving at night); and/or the situation-signal is received from a situation detection device; and/or the manoeuvring is a parking procedure; and/or the image date processing mode is selected from at least three predefined possible image date processing modes; and/or the reverse driving mode comprises generating a wide-angle view of the received image data; and/or the motorway driving mode comprises generating a zoom view of the received image data; and/or the manoeuvring mode comprises generating a wide-angle view of the received image data; and/or the default mode is an inner-city driving mode; and/or the different fields of view include a class II view, a class IV view and/or a class V view; and/or in the motorway driving mode, the class V view is decreased compared to the default mode; and/or in the manoeuvring mode, the class V view is increased compared to the default mode; and/or the brightness is a brightness of a backlight of a display of the display device; and/or the step of processing is performed dependent on the received display-brightness-signal such that a contrast of the received image data is increased when the display-brightness-signal indicates an increase of the brightness of the display; and/or the step of processing is performed dependent on the received display-brightness-signal such that a contrast of the received image data is decreased when the display-brightness-signal indicates an decrease of the brightness of the display; and/or adjusting image processing settings dependent on the received user-request signal includes a) selecting another image data processing mode and/or adjusting the selected image data processing mode dependent on the received user-request signal; and/or b) adjusting a contrast, digital gain, and/or noise filtering of the received image data dependent on the received user-request signal; and/or c) adjusting a section of the received image data to be displayed dependent on the received user-request signal (due to the use of “and/or” the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that every limitation is listed in the alternative due to the “or”, therefore the limitations after the first limitation are interpreted as being optional). Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
Claims 33, 34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endress in view of Berne (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0402925).
Regarding claim 33, Endress discloses the vision system according to claim 32, in addition, Endress discloses a display device (figure 1 exhibits display 12 as disclosed at paragraph 35). However, Endress fails to disclose that the display device is configured to display the processed image data configured for simultaneously displaying a class II view, a class IV view and a class V view.
Berne is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Berne teaches a vehicular imaging system wherein the motivation of providing an operator of a utility vehicle with sufficient views around the vehicle to safely navigate an area would have prompted a predictable variation of Endress by applying Berne’s known principal of simultaneously displaying a class II view, a class IV view and a class V view (paragraph 54 teaches that any combination of views can be displays and paragraph 69 teaches that the cameras include class II, IV and V cameras; because “any suitable combination of views includes a view combining class II, IV and V views, it would be obvious to display said view).
In view of the motivations such as providing an operator of a utility vehicle with sufficient views around the vehicle to safely navigate an area one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Endress.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 34, Endress in view of Berne discloses the vision system according to claim 33, in addition, Endress discloses wherein: the image date comprises rearward view image data captured aside and/or behind of the vehicle (figure 1 shows that the cameras capture rearward data captured from the sides of the vehicle); and/or the condition device is a brightness sensor (paragraph 27 teaches using an external brightness sensors 16 and 17); and/or the image data processing device is configured to perform a method according to claim 18 (see claim 18); and/or the display device comprises a display (figure 1 exhibits display 12 as disclosed at paragraph 35). Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
Regarding claim 37, Endress discloses the vehicle according to claim 36, however, Endress fails to disclose wherein: the vehicle is a utility vehicle; and/or the different field of views includes a class II view, a class IV view and/or a class V view. Note that the use of “and/or” means that the limitations are listed in the alternative and only one of the limitations in the list is required.
Berne is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Berne teaches a vehicular imaging system wherein the motivation of providing an operator of a utility vehicle with sufficient views around the vehicle to safely navigate an area would have prompted a predictable variation of Endress by applying Berne’s known principal of the vehicle being a utility vehicle with fields of views including a class II view, a class IV view and/or a class V view (paragraph 69 teaches that the cameras include class II, IV and V cameras; because “any suitable combination of views includes a view combining class II, IV and V views, it would be obvious to display said view).
In view of the motivations such as providing an operator of a utility vehicle with sufficient views around the vehicle to safely navigate an area one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Endress.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van den Brink et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0267820) discloses a vehicular camera system.
Oshima et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0070139) teaches a vehicular system.
Liou (United States Patent Application Publication 2010/0066527) discloses a vehicular camera system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637