Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/923,797

Providing a Surroundings Display on Board a Motor Vehicle

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 23, 2024
Examiner
AYNALEM, NATHNAEL B
Art Unit
2488
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
505 granted / 662 resolved
+18.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
694
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
§112
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 662 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status This is in response to application no. 18/923,797 filed on October 23, 2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 following are the prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schofield et al. (US 20020167589 A1) describes “REARVIEW VISION SYSTEM FOR VEHICLE INCLUDING PANORAMIC VIEW” Title. Yanagi et al. (US 20090079553 A1) describes “VEHICLE PERIPHERY MONITORING APPARATUS AND IMAGE DISPLAYING METHOD” Title Matsuba et al. (US 10994665 B2) describes “a vehicle display system for displaying an image of surroundings of an own vehicle.” Col. 1, lines 5-8. Higuma et al. (US 20230038913 A1) describes “a vehicle display device that may easily distinguish in which direction a displayed image is being viewed from the associated vehicle (own vehicle).” ¶0006. Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 23, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600319
VEHICLE DOOR INTERFACE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587634
Disallowing Unnecessary Layers in Multi-Layer Video Bitstreams
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581103
VIDEO ENCODING/DECODING METHOD AND DEVICE, AND BITSTREAM STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581126
LOW COMPLEXITY NN-BASED IN LOOP FILTER ARCHITECTURES WITH SEPARABLE CONVOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12572023
OPTICAL NAVIGATION DEVICE WITH INCREASED DEPTH OF FIELD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 662 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month