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 Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on April 30, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are amended. Claims 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, and 19 are filed as originally presented. The amendments to the claims obviate the objections and 112b rejections set forth in the previous action, and as a result, those rejections have been withdrawn. A response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art of record is included below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach a feature which “presets” one of the first mode, the display state mode, and the mirror mode as a second mode via a user input (Remarks Page 10). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “presetting”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely recite “setting” a second mode. To set a second mode does not require a temporal order, as setting could be reactive and performed during any time before, after, or while the vehicle is driven. Therefore argument has been considered but is NOT PERSUASIVE as no such presetting function is required by the claim(s).
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 1-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…setting, based on a user input, one of a first mode of displaying surrounding videos of the vehicle in a split screen through a digital rear mirror of the vehicle, a display state mode of displaying a selected one of the surrounding videos through the digital rear mirror, and a mirror mode of the digital rear mirror, as a second mode of the digital rear mirror to be performed while driving the vehicle…” in lines 3-7. At first glance to this limitation, Examiner ascertained that the user input sets either a first mode, a display state mode, or a mirror mode, with the mirror mode being further identified as a second mode such that a user merely sets which of the first mode, display state mode, or mirror mode (i.e., second mode) is to be displayed. However, Examiner then understood the limitation to instead mean the user input sets either a first mode, a display state mode, or a mirror mode with any of these such modes being identified as the second mode based on the user input. Such interpretations would be directly contradictory, thus making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Upon review of the specification and Applicant’s Remarks, it is best understood that the first mode, the display state mode, and the mirror mode are alternatives to be set as a second mode (see Applicant’s specification [0041] and remarks Page 10). Therefore, Examiner will interpret the limitation to instead read “…setting, based on a user input, one of a first mode of displaying surrounding videos of the vehicle in a split screen through a digital rear mirror of the vehicle, a display state mode of displaying a selected one of the surrounding videos through the digital rear mirror, or a mirror mode of the digital rear mirror[[,]] as a second mode of the digital rear mirror to be performed while driving the vehicle…” such that the second mode may be the same as the first mode, may be a display state mode, or may be a mirror mode.
Claim 11 is rejected as having a similar limitation.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as being dependent on claims 1 and 11 respectively.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…wherein, when the digital rear mirror is in the mirror mode, the performing of the first mode is executed after switching the digital rear mirror from the mirror mode to the display state mode…” in lines 1-3. This claim renders confusion as claim 1 only requires one of a first mode, a mirror mode, or a display state mode. It is unclear how if the user selects the first mode to be set as the second mode, how the digital rear mirror would be in a mirror mode, and why the performing of the first mode is executed only after switching from the mirror mode to the display state mode if the digital rear mirror has never been set to be in a mirror mode or a display state mode to begin with. Additionally, the specification seems to allude to the transition as one which generates a displayed video which can be one or more videos after the display is a reflective surface (see Applicant’s specification [0030] and [0036]). Therefore, Examiner will instead read the claim as “…wherein, when the digital rear mirror is in a mirror state, the performing of the first mode is executed after switching the digital rear mirror from the mirror state to a display state which provides a view of at least a portion of the vehicle’s surrounding environment…” such that the mirror state and the display state are not to be confused with the mirror mode and display state mode which may or may not be required by claim 1.
Claim 15 is rejected as having a similar limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “…wherein the performing of the second mode comprises operating the digital rear mirror in the mirror mode in response to the second mode having been set as the mirror mode based on the user input…” in lines 1-3. Claim 1 only requires one of a first mode, a display state mode, or a mirror mode to be set based on a user input. Therefore it is unclear how claim 7 could necessitate performing the second mode in a mirror mode without requiring the mirror mode to be set as a second mode in claim 1. Examiner ascertains that Applicant need to further specify in claim 7 that the second mode is set as a mirror mode before determining that the second mode operates the digital rear mirror in the mirror mode. Examiner has rejected the claim below as if the mirror mode had already been a set requirement.
Claim 8 is rejected as having a similar limitation regarding the display state mode rather than the mirror mode.
Claim 17 is rejected as having a similar limitation to claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected as having a similar limitation to claim 8.
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, 8-9, 11-14, 16 and 18-19 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:
setting, based on a user input, one of a first mode of displaying surrounding videos of the vehicle in a split screen through a digital rear mirror of the vehicle, a display state mode of displaying a selected one of the surrounding videos through the digital rear mirror, and a mirror mode of the digital rear mirror, as a second mode of the digital rear mirror to be performed while driving the vehicle (“The system may provide a standard or default view (such as displaying video images derived from only the rear backup camera) and change or adjust the display to provide a different view or split screen display automatically, such as responsive to determination at the ECU of a condition at the vehicle. The ECU or system, for example, may determine that the vehicle is performing a driving maneuver, such as an unparking maneuver to pull out of a parking spot, based on processing of the image data and/or processing of sensor data or signals received from other sensors or systems at the vehicle (e.g., radar, lidar, GPS, gear selector). For example, the system may determine that the vehicle is pulling forward out of a parking space (such as based on a gear selection of a drive gear and a determination that the vehicle is located in a parking space) and provide the forward cross traffic display mode. 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 display mode related to a driving maneuver which may be set based on a user input.);
performing the first mode of displaying the surrounding videos of the vehicle in the split screen through the digital rear mirror 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 parking or travelling at a speed below a given threshold, i.e., performs a motion related to stopping of the vehicle.); and
performing the second mode through the digital rear mirror while driving the vehicle (“The video display screen may operate to provide a split screen display, where the video display screen is split into two or three or more sections or regions or segments to display desired images, or multiple camera inputs may be stitched together to provide a single display image… The system may be configured to adjust the video images displayed at the display screen or switch between different views, such as responsive to a user input or a determined condition of the vehicle, such as based on a driving maneuver performed by the vehicle (such as based on an unparking maneuver or a parking maneuver), determination (via image processing of captured image data) of a detected pedestrian or object in a field of view of a camera, selection at a gear selector of the vehicle, determination of a position of the vehicle (such as via image processing of captured image data or such as responsive to a global positioning system (GPS) of the vehicle or in communication with a system of the vehicle), or determination that the vehicle is travelling below a threshold speed” [0019]. Thus, the video display switches between modes when a driving maneuver is performed such that the second mode displayed through the mirror is the same as the first mode or different dependent on the driving situation and/or user input.).
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,
when 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,
when the vehicle starts (As identified in the rejection of claim 1, the video screen displays a selected view as a result of unparking, i.e., start, of a vehicle or alternatively as a result of a specific gear selection, i.e., vehicle starts driving.),
Regarding claim 8, Pastoor discloses the operating method of claim 1, wherein the performing of the second mode comprises displaying the selected one of the surrounding videos through the digital rear mirror in response to the second mode having been set as the display state mode based on the user input (Per the rejection of claim 1 which indicates performing the second mode as a “multiple camera” system which stitches together multiple images to generate a single display view, the performance of the second mode therefore comprises the selected one of the surrounding videos in response to the second mode having been set as the display state mode based on the user input. NOTE: The 112b rejection identified above does not require such a display state mode, but given that the reference teaches such a display state mode as being set by the user during driving operations, such a limitation would be considered anticipated by Pastoor.).
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.).
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,
set, based on a user input, one of a first mode of displaying surrounding videos of the vehicle in a split screen through a digital rear mirror of the vehicle, a display state mode of displaying a selected one of the surrounding videos through the digital rear mirror, and a mirror mode of the digital rear mirror, as a second mode of the digital rear mirror to be performed while driving the vehicle (“The system may provide a standard or default view (such as displaying video images derived from only the rear backup camera) and change or adjust the display to provide a different view or split screen display automatically, such as responsive to determination at the ECU of a condition at the vehicle. The ECU or system, for example, may determine that the vehicle is performing a driving maneuver, such as an unparking maneuver to pull out of a parking spot, based on processing of the image data and/or processing of sensor data or signals received from other sensors or systems at the vehicle (e.g., radar, lidar, GPS, gear selector). For example, the system may determine that the vehicle is pulling forward out of a parking space (such as based on a gear selection of a drive gear and a determination that the vehicle is located in a parking space) and provide the forward cross traffic display mode. 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 display mode related to a driving maneuver which may be set based on a user input.),
perform the first mode of displaying the surrounding videos of the vehicle in the split screen through the digital rear mirror 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 parking or travelling at a speed below a given threshold, i.e., performs a motion related to stopping of the vehicle.), and
perform the second mode through the digital rear mirror while driving the vehicle (“The video display screen may operate to provide a split screen display, where the video display screen is split into two or three or more sections or regions or segments to display desired images, or multiple camera inputs may be stitched together to provide a single display image… The system may be configured to adjust the video images displayed at the display screen or switch between different views, such as responsive to a user input or a determined condition of the vehicle, such as based on a driving maneuver performed by the vehicle (such as based on an unparking maneuver or a parking maneuver), determination (via image processing of captured image data) of a detected pedestrian or object in a field of view of a camera, selection at a gear selector of the vehicle, determination of a position of the vehicle (such as via image processing of captured image data or such as responsive to a global positioning system (GPS) of the vehicle or in communication with a system of the vehicle), or determination that the vehicle is travelling below a threshold speed” [0019]. Thus, the video display switches between modes when a driving maneuver is performed such that the second mode displayed through the mirror is the same as the first mode or different dependent on the driving situation and/or user input.).
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,
when 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,
when the vehicle starts (As identified in the rejection of claim 11, the video screen displays a selected view as a result of unparking, i.e., start, of a vehicle or alternatively as a result of a specific gear selection, i.e., vehicle starts driving.),
Regarding claim 18, Pastoor discloses the electronic device of claim 11, wherein, in the second mode, the processor is configured to display the selected one of the surrounding videos in response to the second mode having been set as the display state mode based on the user input (Per the rejection of claim 1 which indicates performing the second mode as a “multiple camera” system which stitches together multiple images to generate a single display view, the performance of the second mode therefore comprises the selected one of the surrounding videos in response to the second mode having been set as the display state mode based on the user input. NOTE: The 112b rejection identified above does not require such a display state mode, but given that the reference teaches such a display state mode as being set by the user during driving operations, such a limitation would be considered anticipated by Pastoor.).
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.
Pastoor further 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 specifically when performing the first mode. As such, Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein, when the digital rear mirror is in the mirror mode, the performing of the first mode is executed after switching the digital rear mirror from the mirror mode to the display state mode.
Kanagaraj, in the same field of endeavor, teaches … wherein, when the digital rear mirror is in the mirror mode, the performing of the first mode is executed after switching the digital rear mirror from the mirror mode to the display state mode (“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.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mirror transition feature of Pastoor to include the automatic transition between a mirror state and a display state as taught by Kanagaraj given that such a transition is based on a designated gear position, which is identified as the feature in the rejection of claim 1 for determining operation of a first mode. 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 (Kanagaraj, [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.
The claim however, as noted in the 112(b) rejection above, does not require that Pastoor teach a user input which selects a mirror mode as the second mode. In the event that Applicant explicitly requires such a mirror mode feature upon amendment, it will be noted that Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein the performing the second mode comprises operating the digital rear mirror in the mirror mode in response to the second mode having been set as the mirror mode based on the user input.
Kanagaraj, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches …wherein the performing the second mode comprises operating the digital rear mirror in the mirror mode in response to the second mode having been set as the mirror mode based on the user input (“The vehicle of claim 15 further comprising a user-actuatable switch, the electronic processor being configured to switch the rearview mirror display system from the mirror mode to the display mode in response to a user actuating the switch” [Claim 17]. Thus, a user may set the rearview mirror display system to a mirror mode, and thus performing the second mode may comprise operating the digital rear mirror in the mirror mode in response to the user input which sets a mirror mode in place of a display mode.).
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 rearview mirror of Pastoor to additionally include the user-actuatable switch which sets a mirror mode in response to user input 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 in some instances, a user may prefer the mirror mode for specific driving maneuvers (Kanagaraj, [0009]), and thus by allowing a user to set the preferred mode there may be increased satisfaction from the driver during use of the digital rear mirror based on their unique preference.
Regarding claim 15, Pastoor teaches the electronic device of claim 11.
Pastoor further 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. As such, Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein, when the digital rear mirror is in the mirror mode, the processor is configured to perform the first mode after switching the digital rear mirror from the mirror mode to the display state mode.
Kanagaraj, in the same field of endeavor, teaches …wherein, when the digital rear mirror is in the mirror mode, the processor is configured to perform the first mode after switching the digital rear mirror from the mirror mode to the display state mode (“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.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the mirror transition feature of Pastoor to include the automatic transition between a mirror state and a display state as taught by Kanagaraj given that such a transition is based on a designated gear position, which is identified as the feature in the rejection of claim 1 for determining operation of a first mode. 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 (Kanagaraj, [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.
The claim however, as noted in the 112(b) rejection above, does not require that Pastoor teach a user input which selects a mirror mode as the second mode. In the event that Applicant explicitly requires such a mirror mode feature upon amendment, it will be noted that Pastoor does not explicitly teach …wherein, in the second mode, the processor is configured to operate the digital rear mirror in the mirror mode in response to the second mode having been set as the mirror mode based on the user input.
Kanagaraj, pertinent to the problem at hand, teaches … wherein, in the second mode, the processor is configured to operate the digital rear mirror in the mirror mode in response to the second mode having been set as the mirror mode based on the user input (“The vehicle of claim 15 further comprising a user-actuatable switch, the electronic processor being configured to switch the rearview mirror display system from the mirror mode to the display mode in response to a user actuating the switch” [Claim 17]. Thus, a user may set the rearview mirror display system to a mirror mode, and thus performing the second mode may comprise operating the digital rear mirror in the mirror mode in response to the user input which sets a mirror mode in place of a display mode.).
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 rearview mirror of Pastoor to additionally include the user-actuatable switch which sets a mirror mode in response to user input 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 in some instances, a user may prefer the mirror mode for specific driving maneuvers (Kanagaraj, [0009]), and thus by allowing a user to set the preferred mode there may be increased satisfaction from the driver during use of the digital rear mirror based on their unique preference.
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,
wherein 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.),
wherein 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
the 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,
wherein 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
the 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.),
wherein 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
the 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 9 A.M. to 4 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
Prosecution Insights