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 Arguments
The applicant has amended Claim 8 and the corresponding rejections of Claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant has argued that Ribero does not teach the limitations of cancelled Claim 5 (now integrated into the independent claims) because Ribero “merely changes a view (normal to panoramic or a view of cargo), it fails to disclose modifying the display to make it less obvious by changing size, color, contrast, or blurring until a trigger event occurs”. Additionally, the applicant argues that “Ribero fails to modify the display based on a degree of automated driving of the vehicle by making the data displayed less obviously than in a manual mode with low automation”. The argument appears to assert that Ribero does not teach the limitation because the driver-side and passenger-side image data is allegedly not displayed “less obviously” in higher automation modes than in lower automation modes. This argument is not persuasive because the alternative views presented in Ribero can all represent driver-side and passenger side data being presented less obviously via a change of size of said data. The broadest reasonable interpretation of driver-side and passenger-side data in the context of the claims is data related to the rear-view of the driver-side mirror and passenger-side mirror of a traditional vehicle. Ribero teaches changing the view to either a panoramic wide-angle of view or offering a trailer visualization. A panoramic view includes more of the environment of the vehicle and therefore presents the data specific to the driver-side and passenger-side as smaller than if they were presented alone rendered the data specific to those sides less obvious when compared to the image of the whole environment presented in the panoramic view. The trailer view also renders the driver-side and passenger-side less obvious by modifying the size of the representative image of those sides to either zero in the case that the trailer view takes over the whole image or at least smaller if the view includes some of the outside environment in addition to the trailer. Indeed, it is clear that Ribero is deliberately intending to make the driver-side and passenger-side views less obvious because Ribero specifically cites, in Paragraph [0065], that images of animals in a trailer are typically forbidden in a manually operated vehicle to avoid driver distraction and keep their focus on areas of the environment that are pertinent to the operation of a vehicle and that Ribero’s invention allows for a driver to engage in said distraction, by viewing the animals in the trailer for example, instead of the environment around the vehicle that is pertinent only to vehicle operation. In this way, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that Ribero teaches at least changing the size of driver-side and passenger-side image feeds (data) for the purpose of making it less obvious to the operator of the vehicle, therefore the rejections of the content of the limitations are being maintained (although the format of these rejections will change to reflect the new dependencies of the claims).
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribero (US 2022/0314798) in view of Agnew (US 2015/0161458).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribero (US 2022/0314798) in view of Agnew (US 2015/0161458) in view of Gross (US 2022/0089181).
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.
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 1, 3-4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribero (US 2022/0314798) in view of Agnew (US 2015/0161458).
As per Claim 1:
Ribero discloses the following limitations:
“A computer-implemented method for controlling a graphical user interface on a display of a vehicle, wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least one driver-side digital rearview mirror area and at least one passenger-side digital rearview mirror area, the method comprising: receiving a current driving mode, wherein, if the current driving mode corresponds to high or full automation, the method comprises: receiving driver-side image data, comprising an image of a driver-side rear field of view, receiving passenger-side image data, comprising an image of a passenger-side rear field of view, displaying the driver-side image data in the driver-side digital rearview mirror area in such a way that said data are displayed less obviously than in a manual driving mode, by one or more of a change in size, a change in color, a change in contrast, and a change in blurring of the driver-side image data, displaying the passenger-side image data in the passenger-side digital rearview mirror area in such a way that said data are displayed less obviously than in the manual driving mode, by one or more of the change in size, the change in color, the change in contrast, and the change in blurring of the passenger-side image data”
Ribero Paragraphs [0061]-[0064] discloses changing the size of the display from the side cameras based on whether a vehicle is in autonomous driving mode. The broadest reasonable interpretation of driver-side and passenger-side data in the context of the claims is data related to the rear-view of the driver-side mirror and passenger-side mirror of a traditional vehicle. Ribero teaches changing the view to either a panoramic wide-angle of view or offering a trailer visualization. A panoramic view includes more of the environment of the vehicle and therefore presents the data specific to the driver-side and passenger-side as smaller than if they were presented alone rendered the data specific to those sides less obvious when compared to the image of the whole environment presented in the panoramic view. The trailer view also renders the driver-side and passenger-side less obvious by modifying the size of the representative image of those sides to either zero in the case that the trailer view takes over the whole image or at least smaller if the view includes some of the outside environment in addition to the trailer. Indeed, it is clear that Ribero is deliberately intending to make the driver-side and passenger-side views less obvious because Ribero specifically cites, in Paragraph [0065], that images of animals in a trailer are typically forbidden in a manually operated vehicle to avoid driver distraction and keep their focus on areas of the environment that are pertinent to the operation of a vehicle and that Ribero’s invention allows for a driver to engage in said distraction, by viewing the animals in the trailer for example, instead of the environment around the vehicle that is pertinent only to vehicle operation. In this way, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that Ribero teaches at least changing the size of driver-side and passenger-side image feeds (data) for the purpose of making it less obvious to the operator of the vehicle
Ribero does not disclose the following limitations that Agnew does disclose:
“identifying objects in the driver-side image data and the passenger-side image data, checking whether at least one trigger object has been identified in the objects, wherein, if at least one trigger object has been identified, the method comprises: adapting the graphical user interface, in particular the driver-side digital rearview mirror area and the passenger-side digital rearview mirror area, by one ore more of modifying the change in size, the change in color, the change in contrast, the change in blurring of the driver-side image data, and adding a color-highlighted frame around the at least one trigger object, and displaying the adapted graphical user interface on the display of the vehicle.”
Agnew Paragraphs [0012]-[0017] disclose a vehicle that uses a camera for rear-view visualization on a display screen for the driver that changes the graphical interface (i.e. the screen elements) when an object detected behind the vehicle is determined to be an emergency vehicle. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the location of the screen is arbitrary so long as it is in view of the driver. Paragraph [0015] discloses highlighting an emergency vehicle in a highlighting color.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Ribero with the object identification disclosed by Agnew. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system safer by preventing the obstruction of emergency vehicles based on occluded vision.
With regards to Claim 3, Ribero in view of Agnew discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least one additional display area.”
Ribero Figure 3 discloses multiple display areas.
With regards to Claim 4, Ribero in view of Agnew discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the at least one trigger object corresponds to at least one of an ambulance, a fire truck, a police vehicle, a bicycle and a person.”
Agnew [Abstract] discloses identifying emergency vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Ribero with the object identification disclosed by Agnew. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system safer by preventing the obstruction of emergency vehicles based on occluded vision.
With regards to Claim 6, Ribero in view of Agnew discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“A computer program product containing instructions that, when the program is executed by a computer, cause said computer to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1.”
Ribero discloses a system that operates automatically and clearly via a computer.
As per Claim 7: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 8, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale. Additionally, Figure 5 discloses “a data processing device, comprising: a processor that is configured such that it is able to carry the steps of a computer-implement method, a computer-readable storage medium that is communicatively connected to the processor, a driver-side rearview mirror camera that is communicatively connected to the processor, and a display that is communicatively connected to the processor.
With regards to Claim 9, Ribero in view of Agnew discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8 and further discloses the following limitations:
“The data processing device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the data processing device is located in a vehicle.”
Ribero discloses a system that operates automatically and clearly via a computer as well as the other claimed devices, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the placement of processing components would be in the vehicle.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribero (US 2022/0314798) in view of Agnew (US 2015/0161458) in view of Gross (US 2022/0089181).
With regards to Claim 2, Ribero in view of Agnew discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 but does not disclose the following limitations that Gross does disclose:
“wherein the current driving mode is characterized by a classification according to SAE J3016.”
Gross Paragraph [0002] discloses the various stages of autonomous operation according to SAE J3016.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Ribero in view of Agnew with the recognition of the definition of autonomous vehicles disclosed by Gross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by ensuring that it complies with industry standards.
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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights