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 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “…information on the object includes at least one of…” in line 8. Information on the object was previously defined in line 4 as an output. As such, Examiner recommends introducing the limitation of line 8 as “…the information on the object…” such that it is clearly understood that the information including at least one of the provided type, size, speed, or distance from the vehicle is the same information which is output.
Claim 20 is objected to as having a similar limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5-6, 13, and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 5-6, 13, and 15-16 are considered indefinite since they contain the conditional clause “if” creating an uncertainty wherein an event can occur or not, hence the use of this clause renders the claims indefinite and the scope of the claim is unascertainable because the use of conditional term “if” is linked to two options: Yes or No, so the claim must provide the result of both possibilities: "Only after X happens will Y happen." The condition is a singular event that triggers the indicated response. The speaker does not know whether the activity in the “if” phrase will occur. Hence, One suggested option to correct this issue is using the word “when” instead of if”. That is, "Anytime X occurs, Y results." That X will occur is expected (when). The speaker knows that the activity in “when” phrase is likely to occur. “When” expresses more certainty than “if”. In other words, the use of “if” is to introduce a possible or unreal situation or condition, while the use of “when” refers to the time of a future situation or condition that we are certain of.
Claim 5 additionally recites “…the performing of the first mode is executed after switching the digital rear mirror to a display state if the digital rear mirror is in a mirror state” in lines 1-3. It is unclear what is meant in this limitation because there is an indication of after without clearly stating the preceding action. Examiner is unsure whether the mirror state is the result of the display state or if the mirror state precedes the display state such that the rear view mirror was in a mirror state and then switched to the display state. Based on Fig. 8 of Applicant’s disclosure, Examiner interprets that the mirror state switched to the display state which then allowed execution of the first mode. As such, Examiner will read the claim as “…the performing of the first mode is executed after switching the digital rear mirror from a mirror state to a display state.”
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below, in view of the prior art record, as best understood by the Examiner in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections provided herein.
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.
(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 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pastoor et al. (US 2022/0118915 A1; hereinafter “Pastoor”).
Regarding claim 1, Pastoor discloses an operating method of an electronic device mounted to a vehicle (Disclosure relates to operation methods of vehicle ECU which provides “video images to the video mirror display” [0026].), the operating method comprising:
performing a first mode of displaying surrounding videos of the vehicle in a split screen through a digital rear mirror of the vehicle based on a motion related to stopping of the vehicle (“The system may provide the display based on one or more conditions at the vehicle, such as based on the parking maneuver performed and determination of presence of traffic, objects or pedestrians, the vehicle traveling below a threshold speed (e.g., cross-traffic or split screen video images of an unparking maneuver may only be displayed when the vehicle is traveling at a speed below a threshold speed of, for example, 5 mph or 10 mph), determination of a location of the vehicle, and/or responsive to a user input” [0027]. Thus, there is a first mode which displays the split screen video images when the vehicle is travelling at a speed below a given threshold, i.e., performs a motion related to stopping of the vehicle.); and
performing a preset second mode through the digital rear mirror while driving the vehicle (“…wherein the front cross-traffic view video images cease to be displayed at the video mirror display screen responsive to determination that the vehicle is traveling above a threshold speed” [Claim 7]. Thus, when the vehicle travels above a threshold speed, i.e., drives, the video images cease display, i.e., perform a preset second mode.).
Regarding claim 2, Pastoor discloses the operating method of claim 1, wherein the surrounding videos include at least two of a front view video, a front-rear view video, a left-rear view video, and a right-rear view video of the vehicle (Figs. 3-5 show the various surrounding videos captured, which include each of a front view, a front-rear view, a left-rear view, and a right-rear view video.).
Regarding claim 3, Pastoor discloses the operating method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the first mode is executed,
if a speed of the vehicle decreases to be less than a predetermined threshold (As was disclosed in Paragraph [0027], the display in the first mode is initiated when a vehicle speed is less than a predetermined threshold.), or
Regarding claim 4, Pastoor discloses the operating method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the first mode comprises:
acquiring the surrounding videos through a plurality of camera devices, respectively (“…a vehicle 10 includes an imaging system or vision system 12 that includes multiple exterior viewing cameras, including, for example, surround view cameras 14a-d (including a rearward viewing or rear backup camera 14a, a forward viewing camera 14b at the front of the vehicle and side surround view cameras 14c, 14d at respective sides of the vehicle), camera monitoring system (CMS) cameras 15a-c (including side rearward viewing CMS cameras 15a, 15b at the respective sides of the vehicle, and a rearward viewing camera 15c that has a different field of view than the rear backup camera 14a), which capture image data of the respective scenes exterior of the vehicle and in the field of view of the respective camera, with each camera having a lens for focusing images at or onto an imaging array or imaging plane or imager of the camera (FIG. 1)” [0016]. Thus, cameras 14a-d and 15a-c capture each respective surrounding video.);
generating the split screen by arranging the surrounding videos in a preset array (Figs. 2-7 exemplify how the surrounding videos are displayed in a preset array of three viewpoints depending on the respective layout of a desired forward or backward and left or right view.); and
displaying the split screen through the digital rear mirror (Figs. 3-6 show the video display provided as a split-screen through the interior rearview mirror assembly.).
Regarding claim 6, Pastoor discloses the operating method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the second mode is executed,
if a preset speed is reached after starting the vehicle (As previously described in Claim 7, the display ceases, i.e., performs a second mode, when the vehicle reaches a speed above a given threshold.), or
Regarding claim 9, Pastoor discloses the operating method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining stopping of the vehicle and driving of the vehicle using state information of the vehicle, wherein the state information includes at least one of speed information, operation information of a brake pedal, operation information of an accelerator pedal, and location information (“The system may provide the views, such as responsive to a user actuated input, or automatically, such as based on a condition of the driver or condition of the vehicle. For example, the system may process the captured image data to determine whether to provide a view or receive inputs or may process captured sensor data from one or more sensors or systems of the vehicle, such as a radar (such as part of a blind spot monitoring or rear cross traffic alert system of the vehicle), ultrasonic sensors, P-R-N-D-L signal (from a gear selector of the vehicle), a driver monitoring camera system, a vehicle speed input, a GPS location input, a usage database (such as a data set and algorithm (neural net) to identify situations for use, for example, learning driver habits and tendencies to predict usage patterns for drivers)” [0029]. Thus, the determination of whether or not to provide a view is based on speed input and location input. Additionally, as was determined by the above rejection of claim 1, the determination of a first mode display and a second mode non-display is determined based off of a threshold speed and thus the stopping and driving determinations are based on speed information of the vehicle state information.).
Regarding claim 11, Pastoor discloses the electronic device mounted to a vehicle (“ECU 18”; Fig. 1), the electronic device comprising:
a memory; and a processor configured to connect to the memory, and configured to execute at least one instruction stored in the memory (“The vision system 12 includes a control or electronic control unit (ECU) 18 having electronic circuitry and associated software, with the electronic circuitry including a data processor or image processor that is operable to process image data captured by the cameras… The ECU may also include a recording function, such that the image data input from the cameras can be stored for a time to enable to the driver to retrieve the image data and view video images derived from the stored image data at a later time… The ECU may be disposed at or in wired communication with the video display screen, such as disposed at or within the interior rearview mirror assembly, or the ECU may be remote from the video display screen and communicate with the video display screen wirelessly” [0018]. Thus, the ECU has appropriate processor and memory to execute commands to display specific camera views on the interior rearview mirror assembly which serves as the video display screen.), wherein the processor is configured to,
perform a first mode of displaying surrounding videos of the vehicle in a split screen through a digital rear mirror of the vehicle based on a motion related to stopping of the vehicle (“The system may provide the display based on one or more conditions at the vehicle, such as based on the parking maneuver performed and determination of presence of traffic, objects or pedestrians, the vehicle traveling below a threshold speed (e.g., cross-traffic or split screen video images of an unparking maneuver may only be displayed when the vehicle is traveling at a speed below a threshold speed of, for example, 5 mph or 10 mph), determination of a location of the vehicle, and/or responsive to a user input” [0027]. Thus, there is a first mode which displays the split screen video images when the vehicle is travelling at a speed below a given threshold, i.e., performs a motion related to stopping of the vehicle.), and
perform a preset second mode through the digital rear mirror while driving the vehicle (“…wherein the front cross-traffic view video images cease to be displayed at the video mirror display screen responsive to determination that the vehicle is traveling above a threshold speed” [Claim 7]. Thus, when the vehicle travels above a threshold speed, i.e., drives, the video images cease display, i.e., perform a preset second mode.).
Regarding claim 12, Pastoor discloses the electronic device of claim l1, wherein the surrounding videos include at least two of a front view video, a front-rear view video, a left-rear view video, and a right-rear view video of the vehicle (Figs. 3-5 show the various surrounding videos captured, which include each of a front view, a front-rear view, a left-rear view, and a right-rear view video.).
Regarding claim 13, Pastoor discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to perform the first mode,
if a speed of the vehicle decreases to be less than a predetermined threshold (As was disclosed in Paragraph [0027], the display in the first mode is initiated when a vehicle speed is less than a predetermined threshold.), or
Regarding claim 14, Pastoor discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein, in the first mode, the processor is configured to,
acquire the surrounding videos through a plurality of camera devices, respectively (“…a vehicle 10 includes an imaging system or vision system 12 that includes multiple exterior viewing cameras, including, for example, surround view cameras 14a-d (including a rearward viewing or rear backup camera 14a, a forward viewing camera 14b at the front of the vehicle and side surround view cameras 14c, 14d at respective sides of the vehicle), camera monitoring system (CMS) cameras 15a-c (including side rearward viewing CMS cameras 15a, 15b at the respective sides of the vehicle, and a rearward viewing camera 15c that has a different field of view than the rear backup camera 14a), which capture image data of the respective scenes exterior of the vehicle and in the field of view of the respective camera, with each camera having a lens for focusing images at or onto an imaging array or imaging plane or imager of the camera (FIG. 1)” [0016]. Thus, cameras 14a-d and 15a-c capture each respective surrounding video.),
generate the split screen by arranging the surrounding videos in a preset array (Figs. 2-7 exemplify how the surrounding videos are displayed in a preset array of three viewpoints depending on the respective layout of a desired forward or backward and left or right view.), and
display the split screen through the digital rear mirror (Figs. 3-6 show the video display provided as a split-screen through the interior rearview mirror assembly.).
Regarding claim 16, Pastoor discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to perform the second mode,
if a preset speed is reached after starting the vehicle (As previously described in Claim 7, the display ceases, i.e., performs a second mode, when the vehicle reaches a speed above a given threshold.), or
Regarding claim 19, Pastoor discloses the electronic device of claim 11,
wherein the processor is configured to determine stopping of the vehicle and driving of the vehicle using state information of the vehicle, and the state information includes at least one of speed information, operation information of a brake pedal, operation information of an accelerator pedal, and location information (“The system may provide the views, such as responsive to a user actuated input, or automatically, such as based on a condition of the driver or condition of the vehicle. For example, the system may process the captured image data to determine whether to provide a view or receive inputs or may process captured sensor data from one or more sensors or systems of the vehicle, such as a radar (such as part of a blind spot monitoring or rear cross traffic alert system of the vehicle), ultrasonic sensors, P-R-N-D-L signal (from a gear selector of the vehicle), a driver monitoring camera system, a vehicle speed input, a GPS location input, a usage database (such as a data set and algorithm (neural net) to identify situations for use, for example, learning driver habits and tendencies to predict usage patterns for drivers)” [0029]. Thus, the determination of whether or not to provide a view is based on speed input and location input. Additionally, as was determined by the above rejection of claim 1, the determination of a first mode display and a second mode non-display is determined based off of a threshold speed and thus the stopping and driving determinations are based on speed information of the vehicle state information.).
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.
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 5, 7, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastoor in view of Kanagaraj et al. (US 2019/0061628 A1; hereinafter “Kanaraj”).
Regarding claim 5, Pastoor teaches the operating method of claim 1.
As cited by Examiner, and as described by Pastoor, the first mode is the display of the split-screen video images and the second mode is the ceasing of display of the respective views. Additionally, Pastoor details “For example, the interior rearview mirror assembly may comprise an auto-dimming electro-optic (such as electrochromic) mirror assembly that operates as a reflecting mirror when the display screen is off, and functions as a video mirror when the display screen is activated” [0032]. However, Pastoor describes no such process of the transition between modes of reflecting mirror and video mirror, other than their respective trigger conditions. As such, Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein the performing of the first mode is executed after switching the digital rear mirror to a display state if the digital rear mirror is in a mirror state.
Kanagaraj, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein the performing of the first mode is executed after switching the digital rear mirror to a display state if the digital rear mirror is in a mirror state (“The invention may enable automatic switching from the display mode to the rearview mirror mode to enable the desired user experience in response to the vehicle being put in a Reverse gear position; the vehicle being put in a Park gear position; or the vehicle stopping at a signal light with a speed of less than five miles per hour. When these three conditions are no longer present, the system may automatically switch from rearview mirror mode to display mode, unless the user has taken action to keep the system in rearview mirror mode. In Drive gear, the system may switch to display mode” [0006]. Thus, there is a feature which automatically switches from a rearview mirror mode, i.e., mirror state, to a display mode, i.e., a display state.).
Provided that Pastoor issues trigger conditions in which a speed below a given threshold populates the display and a speed above a given threshold ceases a display, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the transition condition of Pastoor to include the automatic transition between a mirror state and a display state as taught by Kanagaraj such that when initiating the first mode as taught by Pastor, a mirror state is switched to a display state. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by automatically switching the display based on an appropriate trigger condition, safety is improved as the driver does not have to draw attention away from driving operations (Kanagarajj, [0003]). Additionally, these teachings are merely a combination of known methods which yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Regarding claim 7, Pastoor teaches the operating method of claim1.
As cited by Examiner, and as described by Pastoor, the first mode is the display of the split-screen video images and the second mode is the ceasing of display of the respective views. Additionally, Pastoor details “For example, the interior rearview mirror assembly may comprise an auto-dimming electro-optic (such as electrochromic) mirror assembly that operates as a reflecting mirror when the display screen is off, and functions as a video mirror when the display screen is activated” [0032]. However, Pastoor does not explicitly describe whether the ceasing of respective views turns the display off or merely reverts the display to a single view rather than a cross-traffic view. As such, Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein the performing of the second mode comprises driving the digital rear mirror in a mirror state.
Kanagaraj, in the same field of endeavor teaches … wherein the performing of the second mode comprises driving the digital rear mirror in a mirror state (“The invention may enable automatic switching from the display mode to the rearview mirror mode to enable the desired user experience in response to the vehicle being put in a Reverse gear position; the vehicle being put in a Park gear position; or the vehicle stopping at a signal light with a speed of less than five miles per hour. When these three conditions are no longer present, the system may automatically switch from rearview mirror mode to display mode, unless the user has taken action to keep the system in rearview mirror mode. In Drive gear, the system may switch to display mode” [0006]. Thus, in this case, there is a transition from a display mode to a mirror mode, such that a first mode comprises driving a digital rear mirror in a display state and a second mode comprises driving a digital rear mirror in a mirror state.).
Provided that Pastoor provides respective triggers for driving a display mode when below a predetermined threshold, and ceasing such display mode when driving above a predetermined threshold, 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 ceasing of a display mode as taught by Pastoor to transition the display to a mirror state as taught by Kanagaraj with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the automatic switch between display and mirror states allows the driver to maintain visualization of the road ahead while the system provides the driver with respective views to maintain appropriate visualization of rear-view surroundings depending on the respective driving situation (Kanagaraj, [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Pastoor teaches the electronic device of claim 11.
As cited by Examiner, and as described by Pastoor, the first mode is the display of the split-screen video images and the second mode is the ceasing of display of the respective views. Additionally, Pastoor details “For example, the interior rearview mirror assembly may comprise an auto-dimming electro-optic (such as electrochromic) mirror assembly that operates as a reflecting mirror when the display screen is off, and functions as a video mirror when the display screen is activated” [0032]. However, Pastoor describes no such process of the transition between modes of reflecting mirror and video mirror, other than their respective trigger conditions. As such, Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein, if the digital rear mirror is in a mirror state, the processor is configured to perform the first mode after switching the digital rear mirror to a display state.
Kanagaraj, in the same field of endeavor, teaches ……wherein, if the digital rear mirror is in a mirror state, the processor is configured to perform the first mode after switching the digital rear mirror to a display state (“The invention may enable automatic switching from the display mode to the rearview mirror mode to enable the desired user experience in response to the vehicle being put in a Reverse gear position; the vehicle being put in a Park gear position; or the vehicle stopping at a signal light with a speed of less than five miles per hour. When these three conditions are no longer present, the system may automatically switch from rearview mirror mode to display mode, unless the user has taken action to keep the system in rearview mirror mode. In Drive gear, the system may switch to display mode” [0006]. Thus, there is a feature which automatically switches from a rearview mirror mode, i.e., mirror state, to a display mode, i.e., a display state.).
Provided that Pastoor issues trigger conditions in which a speed below a given threshold populates the display and a speed above a given threshold ceases a display, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the transition condition of Pastoor to include the automatic transition between a mirror state and a display state as taught by Kanagaraj such that when initiating the first mode as taught by Pastor, a mirror state is switched to a display state. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by automatically switching the display based on an appropriate trigger condition, safety is improved as the driver does not have to draw attention away from driving operations (Kanagarajj, [0003]). Additionally, these teachings are merely a combination of known methods which yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143.I(A)).
Regarding claim 17, Pastoor teaches the electronic device of claim 11.
As cited by Examiner, and as described by Pastoor, the first mode is the display of the split-screen video images and the second mode is the ceasing of display of the respective views. Additionally, Pastoor details “For example, the interior rearview mirror assembly may comprise an auto-dimming electro-optic (such as electrochromic) mirror assembly that operates as a reflecting mirror when the display screen is off, and functions as a video mirror when the display screen is activated” [0032]. However, Pastoor does not explicitly describe whether the ceasing of respective views turns the display off or merely reverts the display to a single view rather than a cross-traffic view. As such, Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein, in the second mode, the processor is configured to drive the digital rear mirror in a mirror state.
Kanagaraj, in the same field of endeavor teaches …wherein, in the second mode, the processor is configured to drive the digital rear mirror in a mirror state (“The invention may enable automatic switching from the display mode to the rearview mirror mode to enable the desired user experience in response to the vehicle being put in a Reverse gear position; the vehicle being put in a Park gear position; or the vehicle stopping at a signal light with a speed of less than five miles per hour. When these three conditions are no longer present, the system may automatically switch from rearview mirror mode to display mode, unless the user has taken action to keep the system in rearview mirror mode. In Drive gear, the system may switch to display mode” [0006]. Thus, in this case, there is a transition from a display mode to a mirror mode, such that a first mode comprises driving a digital rear mirror in a display state and a second mode comprises driving a digital rear mirror in a mirror state.).
Provided that Pastoor provides respective triggers for driving a display mode when below a predetermined threshold, and ceasing such display mode when driving above a predetermined threshold, 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 ceasing of a display mode as taught by Pastoor to transition the display to a mirror state as taught by Kanagaraj with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the automatic switch between display and mirror states allows the driver to maintain visualization of the road ahead while the system provides the driver with respective views to maintain appropriate visualization of rear-view surroundings depending on the respective driving situation (Kanagaraj, [0003]).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastoor in view of Blank et al. (US 2021/0245662 A1; hereinafter “Blank”).
Regarding claim 8, Pastoor teaches the operating method of claim 1.
As cited by Examiner, and as described by Pastoor, the first mode is the display of the split-screen video images and the second mode is the ceasing of display of the respective views. Additionally, Pastoor details “For example, the interior rearview mirror assembly may comprise an auto-dimming electro-optic (such as electrochromic) mirror assembly that operates as a reflecting mirror when the display screen is off, and functions as a video mirror when the display screen is activated” [0032]. However, Pastoor does not explicitly describe whether the ceasing of respective views turns the display off or merely reverts the display to a single view rather than a cross-traffic view. As such, Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein the performing of the second mode comprises displaying at least one surrounding video of the vehicle through the digital rear mirror.
Blank, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein the performing of the second mode comprises displaying at least one surrounding video of the vehicle through the digital rear mirror (“For example, the ECU may provide the generated composite see-through trailer images to the center stack display when the vehicle is being driven in reverse and/or when the vehicle (towing the trailer) is driven forward at a speed below a threshold speed (such as 7 mph or 10 mph or 15 mph or the like), and then may automatically switch to provide the generated composite see-through trailer images to the video mirror display when the vehicle is being driven forward at a speed above the threshold speed (such as 7 mph or 10 mph or 15 mph or the like)” [0060]. Thus, there is a mode in which a composite image is displayed on the digital rear mirror once the vehicle exceeds a threshold driving speed. Figs. 9A-9C shows that the display is of at least one surrounding video.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the respective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ceasing of cross view images as taught by Pastoor to include a display of at least one surrounding video through the digital rear mirror as taught by Blank with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by generating a composite image on the digital rear mirror, the driver is provided an unobstructed display of the vehicle surroundings which may be viewed without taking their eyes off the road (Blank, [0060]), thereby increasing vehicle operating safety.
Regarding claim 18, Pastoor teaches the electronic device of claim 11.
As cited by Examiner, and as described by Pastoor, the first mode is the display of the split-screen video images and the second mode is the ceasing of display of the respective views. Additionally, Pastoor details “For example, the interior rearview mirror assembly may comprise an auto-dimming electro-optic (such as electrochromic) mirror assembly that operates as a reflecting mirror when the display screen is off, and functions as a video mirror when the display screen is activated” [0032]. However, Pastoor does not explicitly describe whether the ceasing of respective views turns the display off or merely reverts the display to a single view rather than a cross-traffic view. As such, Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein, in the second mode, the processor is configured to display at least one surrounding video of the vehicle through the digital rear mirror.
Blank, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein, in the second mode, the processor is configured to display at least one surrounding video of the vehicle through the digital rear mirror (“For example, the ECU may provide the generated composite see-through trailer images to the center stack display when the vehicle is being driven in reverse and/or when the vehicle (towing the trailer) is driven forward at a speed below a threshold speed (such as 7 mph or 10 mph or 15 mph or the like), and then may automatically switch to provide the generated composite see-through trailer images to the video mirror display when the vehicle is being driven forward at a speed above the threshold speed (such as 7 mph or 10 mph or 15 mph or the like)” [0060]. Thus, there is a mode in which a composite image is displayed on the digital rear mirror once the vehicle exceeds a threshold driving speed. Figs. 9A-9C shows that the display is of at least one surrounding video.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the respective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the ceasing of cross view images as taught by Pastoor to include a display of at least one surrounding video through the digital rear mirror as taught by Blank with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because by generating a composite image on the digital rear mirror, the driver is provided an unobstructed display of the vehicle surroundings which may be viewed without taking their eyes off the road (Blank, [0060]), thereby increasing vehicle operating safety.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pastoor in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2024/0304090 A1; hereinafter “Suzuki”; Priority to JP 2024/126689A filed 03-08-2023, attached to the file; references made to US document).
Regarding claim 10, Pastoor teaches the operating method of claim 1.
Although Pastoor generally teaches a system equipped with object detection capabilities, Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein the performing of the first mode comprises:
recognizing a predetermined object in at least one of the surrounding videos; and outputting information on the object while displaying the split screen through the digital rear mirror,
the object includes at least one of a person, a thing, a thing approaching the vehicle, and a thing moving away from the vehicle, and
information on the object includes at least one of the object's type, size, speed, and distance from the vehicle.
Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein the performing of the first mode comprises:
recognizing a predetermined object in at least one of the surrounding videos; and outputting information on the object while displaying the split screen through the digital rear mirror (“As illustrated in FIG. 6A, when the target object 40 is present in the first observation region 20A, the first output control unit 30D outputs, to the display surface DS of the display 18A, third warning information 50C that is indicative of presence of the target object 40 in the first observation region 20A (see FIG. 6B)” [0143]. Thus, there is a predetermined object detected in the first observation region, i.e., at least one surrounding video, and information about the object is displayed on the display device (shown as a digital rear mirror in Fig. 6B) via a third warning information.),
the object includes at least one of a person, a thing, a thing approaching the vehicle, and a thing moving away from the vehicle (In this case, the object is classified as a thing “approaching” the vehicle, and specifically shown in the example as a motorcycle.), and
information on the object includes at least one of the object's type, size, speed, and distance from the vehicle (In Fig. 6B we see the information comprising the third warning information including the object’s type, in this case “motorcycle”. A relative speed is also measured (see Fig. 9, S104) and additionally in Fig. 7B the distance of the further vehicle is also displayed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the object detection system and split-screen digital rear mirror display of Pastoor to include the display of target objects and object information in a digital rear mirror image as taught by Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by alerting the driver of detected objects approaching the vehicle through a digital rear display, the driver is able to maintain vision on the road in front of them while having an awareness of objects entering vehicle blind spots, thus increasing vehicle safety.
Regarding claim 20, Pastoor teaches the electronic device of claim 11.
Although Pastoor generally teaches a system equipped with object detection capabilities, Pastoor does not explicitly teach wherein, in the first mode, the processor is configured to
recognize a predetermined object in at least one of the surrounding videos, and
output information on the object while displaying the split screen through the digital rear mirror,
the object includes at least one of a person, a thing, a thing approaching the vehicle, and a thing moving away from the vehicle, and
information on the object includes at least one of the object's type, size, speed, and distance from the vehicle.
Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches … wherein, in the first mode, the processor is configured to
recognize a predetermined object in at least one of the surrounding videos, and output information on the object while displaying the split screen through the digital rear mirror (“As illustrated in FIG. 6A, when the target object 40 is present in the first observation region 20A, the first output control unit 30D outputs, to the display surface DS of the display 18A, third warning information 50C that is indicative of presence of the target object 40 in the first observation region 20A (see FIG. 6B)” [0143]. Thus, there is a predetermined object detected in the first observation region, i.e., at least one surrounding video, and information about the object is displayed on the display device (shown as a digital rear mirror in Fig. 6B) via a third warning information.),
the object includes at least one of a person, a thing, a thing approaching the vehicle, and a thing moving away from the vehicle (In this case, the object is classified as a thing “approaching” the vehicle, and specifically shown in the example as a motorcycle.), and
information on the object includes at least one of the object's type, size, speed, and distance from the vehicle (In Fig. 6B we see the information comprising the third warning information including the object’s type, in this case “motorcycle”. A relative speed is also measured (see Fig. 9, S104) and additionally in Fig. 7B the distance of the further vehicle is also displayed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the object detection system and split-screen digital rear mirror display of Pastoor to include the display of target objects and object information in a digital rear mirror image as taught by Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because by alerting the driver of detected objects approaching the vehicle through a digital rear display, the driver is able to maintain vision on the road in front of them while having an awareness of objects entering vehicle blind spots, thus increasing vehicle safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevant documents additionally considered by the Examiner in rejecting the current claims are also attached to the file (see form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 8 A.M. to 3 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656