Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/961,259

DRIVING INFORMATION DISPLAY APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR CORRECTING CAMERA POSE VALUES USING VANISHING POINT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 26, 2024
Examiner
GEROLEO, FRANCIS
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hyundai Autoever Corp.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
418 granted / 573 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
622
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.8%
-34.2% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
18.1%
-21.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 573 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: storage unit in claim 1. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claim(s) 1, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3876972 B2 (“Osamu”) in view of KR 20130057699 A (“Pil”). Regarding claim 1, Osamu discloses a driving information display apparatus comprising: a processor configured to receive driving guidance information and vehicle location information (Osamu: e.g. see computer such as ECU 38 in Fig. 1 receives map data and position related information, paragraphs [0036]-[0039], [0045]) and perform control to output a guidance screen corresponding to the driving guidance information (Osamu: e.g. guidance image in addition to a general route guidance function outputted/displayed, paragraphs [0041], [0045], [0060]-[0062]); and a storage unit configured to store road information and algorithms driven by the processor (Osamu: e.g. see hard disk storing map data and program, paragraphs [0036]-[0037], [0039], [0042]); wherein the storage unit is further configured to store camera pose values (e.g. see camera parameters are stored, paragraph [0042]) of a forward-view camera of a vehicle (Osamu: e.g. video camera 36 including at last two units attached to front bumper and one unit to a mounting portion of the rearview mirror, paragraph [0044]); and wherein the processor is further configured to: set a crop area; and generate the guidance screen by adding the driving guidance information to the crop area (Osamu: superimposes the guide information on the guide image for example as shown in Fig. 9, paragraphs [0041], [0045], [0060]-[0062]). Although Osamu discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: set a crop area and generate the guidance screen by adding the driving guidance information to the crop area, it is noted Osamu differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose set a crop area so that a location of a vanishing point calculated based on the camera pose values is a center of an image from the forward-view camera of the vehicle. Pil however, teaches set a crop area so that a location of a vanishing point calculated based on the camera pose values is a center of an image from the forward-view camera of the vehicle (Pil: e.g. see area setting unit 160 in Fig. 1 set a template area for mapping the information guide object by obtaining a vanishing point, based on lane information detection by the lane detection unit 140 according to the installation angle and the viewing angle of the camera, to set an area having a predetermined size around the vanishing point as in Fig. 8 and described in the corresponding text). Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Osamu and Pil before him/her, to modify the Guide image generation device, guide image display device, navigation device, and program of Osamu with the teachings of Pil in order to present geographic information in a more intuitive manner by expressing an enhanced augmented reality view mode by displaying representation information of map data at an accurate location. Regarding claims 12 and 20, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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. /Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12591065
DISTANCE MEASUREMENT DEVICE AND DISTANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581109
METHOD FOR ENCODING AND DECODING IMAGE INFORMATION AND DEVICE USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574501
METHOD, AND APPARATUS FOR REFERENCE FRAME SELECTION, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568223
RESTRICTIONS ON DECODER SIDE MOTION VECTOR DERIVATION BASED ON CODING INFORMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563202
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VIDEO INTRA PREDICTION INVOLVING FILTERING REFERENCE SAMPLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+19.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 573 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month