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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 04/23/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 7-10 and 17-20 have been withdrawn in response to the restriction requirement. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1-6 and 11-16 are being examined below.
Election/Restrictions of Species
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the foreign priority applications KR10-2023-0157751 and KR10-2024-0158860 have been received.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a distance between reference line set for one edge…” should be “a distance between a reference line set for one edge…”
Claim 11 is objected to because “wherein the processor is configured to” should be “wherein the processor is further configured to…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 11, the “camera device” in the limitation “a camera device that captures the rear view video” invokes 112(f) as device is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the video to be captured.
In claim 11, the “digital rear mirror module” in the limitation “display the rear view video on the digital rear mirror module” invokes 112(f) as module is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the video to be displayed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification to these claim limitations:
“[0032] The digital rear mirror module 110 may have a display screen 320 for displaying the FoV video 310.” Paragraph [0025] seems to describe a standard camera, the term device suggests a specialized device also containing a camera.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saeki et al. (US 2018/0272940 A1), hereinafter Saeki.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Saeki discloses a digital rear mirror device of a vehicle, comprising: a digital rear mirror module; (see at least [0047] “the on-vehicle display system 1 includes… a rearview monitor 140”)
and a processor configured to connect to the digital rear mirror module, to acquire a rear view video during driving of the vehicle, (see at least [0047] “the on-vehicle display system 1 includes…the on-vehicle display control device 10.” [abstract] “acquire first video data from a rear camera that is arranged on a rear part of the vehicle”)
and to display the rear view video on the digital rear mirror module, (see at least [abstract] “display video clipped as the first area on a rearview monitor 140 that displays rear video of the vehicle”)
wherein the processor is configured to, analyze the rear view video and detect a blind-spot vehicle within an adjacent distance from the vehicle, (see at least [abstract] “perform moving object recognition and detect presence of a rear moving object in the first video data;”)
and output information for warning a collision with the blind-spot vehicle. (see at least [abstract] “display video clearly indicating presence of a detected rear moving object if the detecting unit 70 detects presence of the rear moving object.”)
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Saeki discloses displaying the rear view video on a display screen, (see at least [0113] “the display control unit 90A causes the rearview monitor 140 to additionally display the blind spot area BR or the blind spot area BL corresponding to the side on which the rear moving object V is detected on a display screen of the rearview monitor 140.”)
wherein the adjacent distance corresponds to a distance between reference line set for one edge of the display screen within the display screen and the edge. (see at least [0122-0123] “More specifically, the display control unit 90A causes the clipping unit 50 to change a clipping area of the first area AC so as to include the blind spot area BR or the blind spot area BL… may be set such that the rear video data 110C is extended to a certain area that is set in advance… depending on a distance between the vehicle 100 and the rear moving object V.” [0125] “The first area AC as a display area of the normal display is indicated by a dashed line.”)
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Saeki discloses the detecting of the blind-spot vehicle comprises detecting a recognition point of the blind-spot vehicle between the edge and the reference line. (see at least Fig. 17, [0125] “rear video data 110C1A is extended so as to include extended video data 110B1 that includes the blind spot area BL… The first area AC as a display area of the normal display is indicated by a dashed line.” Note: The corner where the AC makes the L-shaped area would be considered the recognition point.)
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Saeki discloses the reference line is set within the display screen according to an angle of a camera device that captures the rear view video, along with the adjacent distance. (see at least [0086] “if the distance to the detected rear moving object V is short, it is determined that the rear moving object V is present when the area of the rear moving object V that has appeared in the blind spot area BR or the blind spot area BL is equal to or greater than 25% of the area of the whole moving object V that may appear in the same area.” [0137] “the identifying unit 60A1 identifies the second area AR, the second area AL, the blind spot area BR, and the blind spot area BL in the first video data 110A. The identifying unit 60A1 performs this process when the angle of the rear camera 110, the right side mirror 104, or the left side mirror 105 is adjusted”)
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Saeki discloses the adjacent distance is initially set by default or by a user, and changeable by the user. (see at least [0122] “The clipping area of the first area AC to be changed may be set such that the rear video data 110C is gradually extended in accordance with movement of the rear moving object V, or may be set such that the rear video data 110C is extended to a certain area that is set in advance.”)
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 113246978 A), hereinafter Zhang.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Saeki discloses a method for detecting a surrounding vehicle using image analysis and issuing a blind spot indication, but does not explicitly disclose stopping a vehicle from changing lanes.
However, Zhang teaches transmitting, to the vehicle, a signal for blocking changing lanes to an adjacent lane in which the blind-spot vehicle is present, which allows the vehicle to avoid changing lanes to the adjacent lane based on the signal. (see at least [0038] “In step S103, the lane-changing risk of the vehicle is identified based on the obstacle data… the vehicle is controlled to stop the lane-changing.” [0050] “the controller sends a steering recovery signal to the steering controller… to keep the vehicle running on the original road.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the blind spot indication of Saeki to include the extended video display with indication line of the blind spot area disclosed in Zhang, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively ensure driving safety by actively intervening in the steering, see Zhang [0048].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chae et al. (US 2019/0291642 A1) discloses a processor configured to extract a first edge of an object included in a first stitching region in which the first video and the second video of the vicinity of the vehicle are connected; and a display unit configured to overlap and display the first edge and a synthetic video of the first and second video.
Chen (US 11,715,150 B1) discloses a processor may be configured to perform operations to detect objects in the video frames received from a first of the capture devices, determine depth information corresponding to the objects detected.
Schofield et al. (US 2013/0106993 A1) discloses an image capture device having a field of view rearward of the vehicle used to provide at least one horizontal line at least partially extends between the pair of converging lines in order to enhance the ability of a driver of the vehicle to judge relative distance to an object located rearward of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights