Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-12 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.
In claim 1, line 7, “the one or more video signal conductors” lacks proper antecedent basis.
In claim 8, line 7, “the one or more video signal conductors” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,013 in view of Linn et al. (2005/0146607).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 13, patented claims 1, 8 and 13 respectively disclose all the features of the claimed invention except the picture-in-picture display mode as claimed. Linn, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches the well known picture-in-picture display scheme (note Figs. 10b and 10c). That is, the captured rear view videos and the captured side view videos are being displayed on a single screen simultaneously. By using a single monitor to view plurality of captured videos from different cameras, the cost and size of the system can be reduced. Since the video captured by the camera in the claimed invention needs to be displayed to the driver, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include Linn into the claimed invention so that different videos captured by different cameras could be displayed on a single monitor simultaneously.
Regarding claims 2-3, and 5-7, see patented claims 2-3, and 5-7.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12, see patented claims 9-10 and 12.
Regarding claims 14-20, see patented claims 14-20.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,013 in view of Linn et al. (2005/0146607), further in view of Rodgers (4,846,697).
Regarding claim 4, patented claim 4 discloses all the features of the claimed invention except the brake signal conductor and the ground conductor as set forth in claim 4. Rodgers teaches the connections of brake light and ground in between tractor and trailer (col. 1, lines 16-25; col. 3, lines 41-44). Brake light and ground are essential connections in between a tractor and a trailer. Without the brake light connection, the trailer would be rendered unsafe. And without the ground connection, the whole trailer electrical system would not work. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the brake light and ground connections into the patented claimed so that the trailer lights, including brake light, could be functioning properly.
Regarding claims 11, see similar rejection to claim 4 as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 8-18 and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laufer et al. (2006/0066835) in view of Gutierrez et al. (6,007,346), and further in view of Fudala et al. (2009/0072619).
Regarding claim 1, Laufer discloses a vehicle interface for transmitting power and signals between a vehicle and a trailer (note Figs. 2 and 3), comprising: a power conductor configured to provide power to one or more electrical components of the trailer (not shown, but inherently included), the one or more electrical components of the trailer comprising a trailer video camera (14, 16, 18); an original equipment manufacturer circuit (Fig. 1) comprising three or more video inputs (note camera inputs 01 to selection circuit 02), wherein a first (rearview camera 14) of the video inputs is coupled to the one or more video signal conductors (note all the video inputs 01 to selection circuit 02), a second of the video inputs is coupled to a vehicle video camera (note front cameras 13, 15 and 17 at the tractor), and a third of the video inputs is coupled to a video source on board the vehicle (such as the navigation video as described in par. 18), wherein the original equipment manufacturer circuit is configured to choose a video input of the video inputs based on the transmission information and the one or more video signals from the trailer video camera at least in part based upon a reverse condition of the vehicle (note gear selection descriptions in par. 7, 11, 13 and 14) wherein the first of the video inputs is chosen in response to the one or more video signals being present on the one or more video signal conductors and the vehicle being in the reverse condition (note par. 7, 11, 13 and 14), wherein the one or more video signals are provided to an in-vehicle dashboard display associated with a vehicle navigation system (note the navigation display device in par. 18), wherein the video source on board the vehicle is configured to provide vehicle navigation information for display on the in-vehicle dashboard display (note the navigation display device in par. 18), wherein an image from the first video signal is provided on the in-vehicle dashboard display using a picture in picture mode (note par. 17), the first video signal is provided from the trailer video camera (14, 16, 18).
However, Laufer does not disclose that wherein a first video signal is provided across an interface comprising more than 7 pins, wherein at least four pins are for providing signals for trailer lights and at least one pin is for the one or more video signals from the trailer, wherein the interface is configured for a pluggable connection, wherein the pin is disposed outside of a circular pattern about a center point associated with the 7 pins, wherein the interface comprises a first side configured for the pluggable connection to the trailer and a second side opposite the first side configured to receive a pluggable connection from the vehicle,
Gutierrez, from the similar field of endeavor, discloses multiple pins (more than 7 pins) tractor to trailer electrical connector/adapter (note Figs. 7 and 8). Such connections are useful when a tractor vehicle configured for an eight way connection member tows a trailer vehicle set up with a seven way connection or vice versa (note col. 6, lines 14-17).
Therefore, in Laufer, if the tractor employs a 8 pins connector while the trailer employs a 7 pins connector, or vice versa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to utilize the adapter of Gutierrez so that the electrical systems between the tractor and trailer could be connected readily without complicated connectors modifications.
Gutierrez does not disclose that the adapter pins can be used to transmit video signals.
Fudala, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches that the vehicle tow connectors’ pins can be used to transmit video signals (note par. 12, 17, 22, 39). In paragraph 39, Fudala also teaches that the use of connector pins to transmit video signal is obvious: Beyond standard plug and receptacle combinations, a connecting unit 30 could also be modified for application to custom signal transmission needs, such as may be the case where a video camera, reverse lights, proximity detectors, or other specialized electronic equipment is provided in connection with the trailer hitch 30.
Therefore, in view of Fudala, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was made to utilize the connector pins in Gutierrez to transmit the camera video signals in Laufer so that the captured video signals by the trailer cameras could viewed on the display 10 of Laufer.
Regarding claim 2, Gutierrez and Fudala together discloses an adapter configured to utilize a plug with a video conductor (see the rejection above).
Regarding claim 3, Gutierrez and Fudala together discloses the adapter is configured to connect the vehicle plug with a trailer plug (see rejection above).
Regarding claim 4, Gutierrez discloses the trailer light connectors comprise a light conductor, a brake signal conductor, a ground conductor, a right turn conductor, and a left turn conductor arranged in a circular fashion about a center point (note col. 4, lines 19-39). That is, the connectors in Gutierrez (along with all other patented connectors mentioned in col.1) are intended to connect different vehicle lights and grounds, including light conductor, a brake signal conductor, a ground conductor, a right turn conductor, and a left turn conductor as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Laufer, Gutierrez and Fudala together meets the one or more video signal conductors configured to allow image captured by the one or more cameras of the trailer to be transmitted to the vehicle as set forth above.
Regarding claims 8-18 and 20, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Claims 6, 7 and 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Laufer et al. (2006/0066835) in view of Gutierrez et al. (6,007,346), further in view of Fudala et al. (2009/0072619), and further in view of Teskey (4,831,122).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 19, combination of Laufer, Gutierrez, and Fudala does not disclose the video enable signal (VES) circuit configured to detect connection between the vehicle plug and a trailer plug and to detect video signals from the one or more video cameras of the trailer. Teskey, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a video enable signal detection circuit (note controller 30 and switch 18 in Fig. 1). The controller detects the video signals being connected to the input terminals s2 and s3. By using the detection circuit, the video signal can be correctly detected and selected. Therefore, the system increases convenience to the user. Thus, in order to enhance connection convenience in the combination of above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include Teskey into the above combination to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422