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 .
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument with respect to pending claims 1-14 filed on 10/23/2024 have been fully considered. Examiners response to the applicant’s argument follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Kwon does not teach the feature of “creating a second image of a second area located behind the motor vehicle, wherein a first image angle of the first image is greater than a second image angle of the second image; and editing the second image into the first image and providing a resulting third image,” as recited in claim 1 because,
I. the “second image” in Kwon is not an area located behind the vehicle.
II. Kwon does not disclose one rearward image has a greater image angle than another rearward image.
III. Kwon’s stitched image does not equate to one rearward image edited into another rearward image.
Regarding claim 2, applicant argues that Kwon’s generation of panoramic video frames to fit the size and/or shape of eMirror display does not teach “geometries of the first image and the second image are adapted to one another for the third image,” as recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, applicant argues that Kwon’s generation of panoramic video frames to fit the size and/or shape of eMirror display does not teach “parameters of the adaptation are permanently predetermined,” as recite in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, applicant argues that Kwon’s zoom control does not teach “the third image is magnified by a predetermined magnification factor” as recited in claim 4. Furthermore, Kwon’s cropping, adjusting of the image frames to fit the display size does not teach “the third image…trimmed to a predetermined dimension,” as recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, applicant argues that Kwon’s Kwon’s zoom control does not teach “a change of the magnification factor is determined and the magnification of the third image is successively tracked to the magnification factor,” as recited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, applicant argues that Kwon does not teach “a second camera for providing a second image of a second area located behind the motor vehicle, wherein a first image angle of the first image is greater than a second image angle of the second image; and a processing device, which is configured to edit the second image into the first image and to provide a resulting third image,” as recited in claim 10 due to a similar reason provided with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, applicant argues that Kwon’s display 118 does not teach “a head-up display” as recited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, applicant argues that Kwon does not teach “a motor vehicle comprising the device according to claim 10.”
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses (col. 12, lines 23-25) lens 112d may capture video data from a passenger side of the vehicle 50 and the lens 112f may capture video data from a driver side of the vehicle 50. As illustrated in FIG. 3, lines 254a-254b extending from the lens 112f represent a field of view of the driver side camera lens 112f, and lines 256a-256b extending from the lens 112d represent a field of view of the passenger side camera lens 112d. A person of ordinary skill the art would recognize that the field of view represented by lines 254a-254b and 256a-256b include the area located behind the vehicle 50. Furthermore, FIG. 3 illustrates the lines 254a-254b and 256a-256b intersecting a line 260 located behind the vehicle 50. Thus, Kwon teaches “creating a second image of a second area located behind the motor vehicle” as recited in claim 1.
Kwon discloses (col. 13, lines 49-51) a wider-angle rear camera lens 112c than the side cameras lenses 112d and 112f. Moreover, as illustrated in FIG. 3, the field of view 252a-252b of rear lens 112c appear to be wider than the field of view 254a-254b and 256a-256b. Thus, Kwon teaches “a first image angle of the first image is greater than a second image angle of the second image” as recited in claim 1.
Kwon disclose (col. 14, lines 58-65) video frames (e.g., FRAMES_F, FRAMES_C and FRAMES_D) captured by the capture devices corresponding to the lenses 112c, 112d and 112f of the vehicle 50. The video frames may be stitched to generate a panoramic video frames 300 as shown in FIG. 4.
Claim 1 merely requires “editing the second image into the first image and providing a resulting third image”.
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" (BRI) standard: The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In this case, giving the BRI of the claim limitation “editing the second image into the first image and providing a resulting third image” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it as generating a panoramic video frame by stitching video frames FRAMES_F, FRAMES_C and FRAMES_D captured by lenses 112c, 112d and 112f as taught by Kwon. See for example the current application paragraphs [0032] and [0037] states that the third image can be output on a display device 150 which may be a panorama head-up display (pHUD). Thus, Kwon teaches editing the second image into the first image and providing a resulting third image,” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim merely recites “geometries of the first image and the second image are adapted to one another for the third image”.
Kwon discloses stitching the video frames (e.g., FRAMES_F, FRAMES_C and FRAMES_D) by placing the video frames into the assigned areas and stich them to provide the panoramic video frame 300. The process performed include generating the panoramic video frames to fit the size and/or shape of the eMirror display. Kwon col. 14, lines 58 to col. 15, line 6.
In this case, giving the BRI of the claim limitation “geometries of the first image and the second image are adapted to one another for the third image” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it as generating a panoramic video frames to fit the size and/or shape of the eMirror display, as taught by Kwon. See for example the current application paragraphs [0032]-[0033], the image captured by cameras may be scaled and trimmed to a predetermined dimension and displayed on a display device 150 which may be a panorama head-up display (pHUD). Thus, Kwon teaches “geometries of the first image and the second image are adapted to one another for the third image” as recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the claim merely recites the limitation “parameters of the adaptation are permanently predetermined,” as recited in claim 3.
Kwon discloses stitching the video frames (e.g., FRAMES_F, FRAMES_C and FRAMES_D) by placing the video frames into the assigned areas and stich them to provide the panoramic video frame 300. The process performed include generating the panoramic video frames to fit the size and/or shape of the eMirror display. Kwon col. 14, lines 58 to col. 15, line 6.
In this case, giving the BRI of the claim limitation “parameters of the adaptation are permanently predetermined” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it as generating the panoramic video frames to fit the size and/or shape of the eMirror display as taught by Kwon. See for example the current application paragraphs [0032]-[0033], the image captured by cameras may be scaled and trimmed to a predetermined dimension and displayed on a display device 150 which may be a panorama head-up display (pHUD). It should also be noted that, in Kwon, the size and/or shape of the eMirror display has a fixed size and/or shape. Thus, Kwon teaches “parameters of the adaptation are permanently predetermined” as recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the claim requires “the third image is magnified by a predetermined magnification factor and trimmed to a predetermined dimension.”
Kwon discloses (col. 14, lines 28-32) button 304 and/or the button 306 as illustrated in FIG. 4 may be configured to perform zoom control.
In this case, giving the BRI of the claim limitation “the third image is magnified by a predetermined magnification factor ” a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it as a zoom control process, as taught by Kwon. See for example the current application paragraphs [0011]-[0013], [0039] describing the claimed magnification factor correspond to zooming in or zooming out effect. Thus, Kwon teaches “the third image is magnified by a predetermined magnification factor”. Moreover, Kwon discloses (col. 7, lines 41-44, col. 10, lines 15-19) the video frames captured may be cropped and adjusted to fit the display 118. It should be understood that the display 118 has a fixed size. Thus, Kwon teaches “the third image is … trimmed to a predetermined dimension.”
Regarding claim 5, the claim requires “a change of the magnification factor is determined and the magnification of the third image is successively tracked to the magnification factor.” Kwon discloses (col. 14, lines 28-32) button 304 and/or the button 306 as illustrated in FIG. 4 may be configured to perform zoom control.
In this case, giving the BRI of the claim limitation “a change of the magnification factor is determined and the magnification of the third image is successively tracked to the magnification factor ”a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted it as a zoom control process, as taught by Kwon. See for example the current application paragraphs [0011]-[0013], [0039] describing the claimed magnification factor correspond to zooming in or zooming out effect. Thus, Kwon teaches a change of the magnification factor is determined and the magnification of the third image is successively tracked to the magnification factor” as recited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recite the limitation analogous to claim 1. See examiner’s response to with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “the display device comprises a head-up display.” Kwon discloses a vehicle display 118 as illustrated in FIG. 3 which may be eMirror within a vehicle 50. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the display 118 is a head-up display. Furthermore, Kwon explicitly discloses head-up displays (col. 28, lines 5-10). Thus Kwon teaches “the display device comprises a head-up display.”
Regarding claim 14, See examiner’s response with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, the rejection of all the pending claim is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwok (US 10699376 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kwok teaches a method for providing a surroundings display on board a motor vehicle, the method comprising: creating a first image of a first area located behind the motor vehicle (Figs. 3-6, 11-13: col. 14, lines 42-54: portion 310b may correspond with the video frames FRAMES_C generated by the rear capture device 102c); creating a second image of a second area located behind the motor vehicle (col. 14, lines 42-54: the portion 310a may correspond with the video frames FRAMES_F generated by the driver side capture device 102f…the portion 310c may correspond with the video frames FRAMES_D generated by the passenger side capture device 102d), wherein a first image angle of the first image is greater than a second image angle of the second image (See Figs. 3, the field of view 252a-252b which is greater than the field of view 254a-254b or the field of view 256a-256b. col. 13, lines 49-51: a wider-angle…rear camera lens 112c may be selected that is different than the side camera lenses (e.g., 112d and 112f)); and editing the second image into the first image and providing a resulting third image (col. 14, lines 58-65: the video operations may further comprise video stitching to stitch the video frames (e.g., FRAMES_F, FRAMES_C and FRAMES_D) to generate the panoramic video frames 300).
Regarding claim 2, Kwok teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein geometries of the first image and the second image are adapted to one another for the third image (col. 15, lines 1-4: the video operations performed by the processors 106a-106n may be configured to generate the panoramic video frames 300 to fit the size and/or shape of the eMirror display 118).
Regarding claim 3, Kwok teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein parameters of the adaptation are permanently predetermined (col. 15, lines 1-4: the video operations performed by the processors 106a-106n may be configured to generate the panoramic video frames 300 to fit the size and/or shape of the eMirror display 118). Note that the size and/or shape of the eMirror display is a fixed size and/or shape.
Regarding claim 4, Kwok teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the third image is magnified by a predetermined magnification factor (col. 14, lines 28-32: The button 304 and/or the button 306 may be configured to control various features of the eMirror display 118 (e.g., … zoom control ..)) Note that this interpretation is consistent with the disclosure of the current application (para. 0012-0013) and trimmed to a predetermined dimension (col. 7, lines 41-44:The video frames captured by the capture device 102a-102n may be cropped, adjusted and/or encoded by the processors 106a-106n to fit the display 118).
Regarding claim 5, Kwok teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein a change of the magnification factor is determined and the magnification of the third image is successively tracked to the magnification factor (col. 14, lines 28-32: The button 304 and/or the button 306 may be configured to control various features of the eMirror display 118 (e.g., … zoom control ..)). Note that this interpretation is consistent with the disclosure of the current application (para. 0012-0013)
Regarding claim 10, Kwon teaches a device for providing a surroundings display on board a motor vehicle, the device comprising: a first camera for providing a first image of a first area located behind the motor vehicle (Figs. 3-6, 11-13: col. 14, lines 42-54: portion 310b may correspond with the video frames FRAMES_C generated by the rear capture device 102c); a second camera for providing a second image of a second area located behind the motor vehicle (col. 14, lines 42-54: the portion 310a may correspond with the video frames FRAMES_F generated by the driver side capture device 102f…the portion 310c may correspond with the video frames FRAMES_D generated by the passenger side capture device 102d), wherein a first image angle of the first image is greater than a second image angle of the second image (See Figs. 3, the field of view 252a-252b which is greater than the field of view 254a-254b or the field of view 256a-256b. col. 13, lines 49-51: a wider-angle… rear camera lens 112c may be selected that is different than the side camera lenses (e.g., 112d and 112f)); and a processing device, which is configured to edit the second image into the first image and to provide a resulting third image (col. 14, lines 58-65: The processors 106a-106n may be configured to perform video operations…the video operations may further comprise video stitching to stitch the video frames (e.g., FRAMES_F, FRAMES_C and FRAMES_D) to generate the panoramic video frames 300).
Regarding claim 11, Kwok teaches the device according to claim 10, further comprising a display device for displaying the third image to a driver of the motor vehicle (col. 14, lines 17-20: the eMirror display 118 may output (e.g., display) a panoramic video frame 300).
Regarding claim 13, Kwon teaches the device according to claim 11, wherein the display device comprises a head-up display ( a display 118).
Regarding claim 14, Kwon teaches a motor vehicle comprising the device according to claim 10 (See the rejection of claim 10).
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwok (US 10699376 B1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20190253611 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kwok does not explicitly teach wherein the magnification is tracked using a predetermined speed.
However, Wang teaches wherein the magnification is tracked using a predetermined speed (¶0159: the zoom level of the image is automatically adjusted to the pre-set zoom level or by a predetermined zoom factor at a speed…The speed of adjusting the image to a pre-set zoom level or by a predetermined zoom factor may be determined by the speed at which the imaging device is capable of zooming…).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwok by incorporating the teaching of Wang so that the object of interest is displayed to user at the desired magnification and position with respect to the image or view (Wang ¶0005).
Regarding claim 7, Kwok does not explicitly teach wherein the magnification is tracked using a predetermined speed profile.
However, Wang teaches wherein the magnification is tracked using a predetermined speed profile (¶0159: the zoom level of the image is automatically adjusted to the pre-set zoom level or by a predetermined zoom factor at a speed… The speed of adjusting the image to a pre-set zoom level or by a predetermined zoom factor may be determined by the speed at which the imaging device is capable of zooming…).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwok by incorporating the teaching of Wang so that the object of interest is displayed to user at the desired magnification and position with respect to the image or view (Wang ¶0005).
Regarding claim 8, Kwok dose no explicitly teach wherein a first magnification factor and a second magnification factor are predetermined.
However, Wang teaches wherein a first magnification factor and a second magnification factor are predetermined (¶0159: the zoom level of the image is automatically adjusted to the pre-set zoom level or by a predetermined zoom factor at a speed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwok by incorporating the teaching of Wang so that the object of interest is displayed to user at the desired magnification and position with respect to the image or view (Wang ¶0005).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwok (US 10699376 B1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20190253611 A1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Hashimoto (US 20170282813 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kwok in view of Wang do not explicitly teach wherein one of the predetermined magnification factors is selected depending on a signal which indicates whether the motor vehicle is to drive forward or in reverse.
However, Hashimoto teaches wherein one of the predetermined magnification factors is selected depending on a signal which indicates whether the motor vehicle is to drive forward or in reverse (¶0087, 0092: Different magnifications of the output image Im may be set for the forward travel and the backward travel).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwon in view of Wang by incorporating the teaching of Hashimoto in order to output image of an appropriate size for each of the forward travel and the backward travel of the vehicle (Hashimoto: ¶0092).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwok (US 10699376 B1) in view of Hashimoto (US 20170282813 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kwok does not teach wherein a ratio of a width to a height of the third image on the display device exceeds four.
Hashimoto discloses “the horizontal length or the width of the output image Im in the forward travel is larger than that of the output image Im in the backward travel, and a ratio of the horizontal length or width thereof to the vertical length or height thereof is higher than that in the backward travel” (Hashimoto: ¶0082. Fig. 16). Thus, Hashimoto teaches the width of the image is higher than the height of the image except that the ratio exceeds four.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kwok in view of Hashimoto to arrive at the claimed invention “wherein a ratio of a width to a height of the third image on the display device exceeds four”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 20140114534 A1) discloses a dynamic rearview mirror display system of a vehicle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM 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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights