DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/09/2024, wherein claims 1-4 have been examined and are pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-082536, retrieved on 11/28/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. (US 2016/0332569) hereinafter Ishida.
Regarding claim 1, Ishida discloses a safety monitoring system of a construction machine, comprising:
a detection device that detects an object in surrounding of the construction machine (Ishida [0038]: a vehicle 100 having obstacle detection sensor 106 which includes cameras to detect presence of obstacles around the vehicle as in [0042], [0048], [0051]; [0042], [0029]: the vehicle includes any moving vehicle and not limited to cars, trucks, vans,… hence can be construction machine);
a display device that displays a captured image of the surroundings of the construction machine (Ishida [0044], [0067], [0088], [0122]-[0123], Figs. 9 and 12-14: at least one display 158 for display captured images, as in [0135], and visual alert to the driver of the vehicle regarding presence of obstacles); and
a control device that controls the detection device and the display device, wherein if the detection device detects the object, the control device controls the display device to display a defined edge on an outer edge of a screen displayed on the display device (Ishida [0038], [0045], [0047]-[0048]: a processor 168 processes data signals and determines the position of the obstacle and implement a corresponding driver alert device accordingly, which controls the display to provide view of the road with obstacle for the driver as in [0088], [0124]; Figs. 9A-9D, [0123]: the display 158 includes a border 904 around a periphery of the display 158. The border 904 has a color that changes based on detection of obstacle 216 by the obstacle detection module 180. Hence, if the detection device detects object, the display device is controlled to display an image with a defined edge, i.e. a defined colored border, wherein the image includes the object 216 as in Figs. 9 and 13-14, and the defined edge is on an outer edge of the screen as in Fig. 9A; [0129]-[0130]: the color of the border 904 is changed to green based on a low driver alert level, e.g. indicative of a large distance between vehicle and the obstacle; [0152]: the color of the border is changed based on distance of the obstacle from the vehicle; [0126]-[0127]: the border 904 can be a first predetermined color, such as green, when obstacle is not detected. The border 904 can be a second predetermined color, such as yellow, when an obstacle is detected. The yellow border is a defined edge and is only displayed when an object is detected. Hence, if the detection device detects the object, the control device controls the display device to display an image with a defined edge).
Regarding claim 2, Ishida discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Ishida discloses wherein, the control device controls the display device to display the defined edge on upper and lower outer edges of the screen (Ishida Figs. 9A-9D, [0123]; [0129]-[0130]: the border 904 is defined edge that includes upper and lower outer edges of the screen as in Fig. 9A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
2. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 2016/0332569) hereinafter Ishida, in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 2019/0351824) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Ishida discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Ishida discloses the control device controls the display device to display the image of the surroundings on the screen.
Ishida does not explicitly disclose overlay the defined edge on the image of the surroundings.
However, Kim discloses wherein, the control device controls the display device to display the image of the surroundings on the screen, and to overlay the defined edge on the image of the surroundings (Kim Fig. 10d, [0294]-[0295]: overlay areas 377 is displayed overlaid on existing image along an edge of screen 373 which displays a first image 321 of object acquired from a camera 160a).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method and system, as disclosed by Ishida, and further incorporate having the control device controls the display device to display the image of the surroundings on the screen, and to overlay the defined edge on the image of the surroundings, as taught by Kim, to emphasize the image to induce driver’s attention (Kim[0294])-[0295]).
Regarding claim 4, Ishida and Kim disclose all the limitations of claim 3.
Ishida discloses wherein, if the detection device detects the object, the control device controls the display device to add a warning indication to the image of the surroundings (Ishida Figs. 9A-9D, [0123]: the display 158 includes a border 904 around a periphery of the display 158. The border 904 has a color that changes based on detection of obstacle 216 by the obstacle detection module 180, hence add a warning indication to the image of the surroundings; [0148]: flashing an area of the display such as the border when there is obstacle; Fig. 12, [0152], [0154], [0167]: indicator icon 1224, i.e. warning sign, is presented within the display on the right camera image 1220 when obstacles 216 are detected, as compared with no indicator icon displayed on the left camera image 1210 since no object is detected in the left. Hence, if the detection device detects the object, the control device controls the display device to add a warning sign to the image of the surroundings).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0626. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached on 571-272-7384. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHLEEN V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486