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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeWind et al., US 2008/0266389.
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
233
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed a control device is met by Control/microprocessor 582 (Fig 54, para 171) which controls the display content based upon a predetermined condition (triggering events) such as the vehicle gear being placed in Reverse (para 8, 80, 116-117, 120, 144, 147-150, 158-161, 171 and 181) for backup camera/aid, also for displaying warnings/alerts to the driver (para 143, 145, 149) and may change/adjust/reconfigure the display to another activating event (condition, trigger) (para 150) such as when the vehicle is low on fuel or missed/passed a waypoint (para 158, 159). As noted DeWind may include a retractable/extendable display with the mirror (Figs 2-3) and also a fixed display screen (Figs 44-45)
The claimed not switch…the driver/occupant may override the event hierarchy of content being displayed by manually activating another one of the triggering events/systems/function (para 150, 174) which may be accomplished via a user input or the like (via voice or the like) where the
In considering claim 2,
The display device is mounted in a vehicle…as disclosed by DeWind the display is mounted to the inside rear view mirror (para 6-7, 10) or an overhead accessory (para 10-12), (Fig 16, 41, 44-46, 70, 72, 75, 91, 129, 187-189, 193-198, 200-202, 205-206, 208).
The claimed specific display content…may be an image captured by a vehicle cameras (79-80, 148, 249) or a composite image generated by the NTSC analog or PAL camera or the like (para 248-250).
In considering claim 6,
Refer to claim 1, where the apparatus claim 1 performs the method as claimed.
In considering claim 7,
Refer to claim 1 for the steps/process performed. Regarding the non-transitory computer readable medium….Dewind discloses a system that may use appropriate software/hardware and circuitry to control the display (para 99-100, 240), including the display being able to connect to a portable computer/storage device (para 242) as well as using computer graphics (para 243) and the display may received/be connected to memory devices (para 240-241).
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 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
DeWind et al., US 2008/0266389 in view of Gregg et al., US 6,353,449.
In considering claim 3,
The examiner notes DeWind does not explicitly recite the conventional features of judging a) that the input operation has been performed for greater than or equal to a predetermined number of times within a predetermined period of time or b) has been continued to be performed for a predetermined time period or more.
The examiner notes (b) when controlling a display, it is known that when a user is actively (continuously) interacting with the display for a predetermined time period (or more) that indicates “user input”.
The examiner evidences Gregg et al., Col 8, line 15-27 (claim 9) which discloses such conventional features. It is noted that Gregg discloses if the user is not continuously within a predetermined time period changing the display to a screensaver (display content change).
The examiner notes one of ordinary skill in the art would include the advantages of Gregg of monitoring the user inputs including continuous within a time interval, to ensure the user a proper display based upon interaction or not with DeWind which discloses that the user can override a display change/content validates the user request/input, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
DeWind et al., US 2008/0266389 in view of KING et al., US 20120139816.
In considering claim 4,
The examiner notes that a) DeWind discloses switching the display whether based upon driving forward or backward (reverse), speed and warnings (143, 145, 149, 154, 155, 170-171, 245).
bThe examiner notes DeWind does disclose the controller may override any suppression of the display to ensure the user user input overriding the displaying/switching of content. (para 145, 149, 158, 209, 239.
The examiner provides additional evidence for a display to override a user input to ensure safety of the vehicle/operator by overriding the user settings/actions as evidenced by KING.
The examiner evidences KING et al., which discloses the system may override the user selection or settings to ensure driver’s safety (para 27) and also the displaying of critical information (para 27-29).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify DeWind with KING, where the display ensures a safe vehicle operation by displaying/notifying the driver/operator of critical information regardless of user input/setting, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 5,
Dewind discloses the display can be changed based upon the speed (being lower or higher then a predetermined speed) as well as the shift position being in the forward…(para 149, 154, 155, 170, 171)
The second switching includes a gear position being in reverse (para 8, 80, 101, 120, 139, 143, 147-150, 170-171, 249.
Regarding the relative distance of objects, DeWind discloses the object sensing and distance sensing (para 81, 135, 170) can be included to warn/alert the driver, detected rearward or in the path of the vehicle.
DeWind thus detects objects and provides markers, notification when objects are nearby and within distance markers to ensure the operator/driver is aware of any objects including pedestrians/vehicle when operating the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see cited references on attached form PTO-892.
US 6,304,173 (Fig 2, full text para 14, claim 9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2400 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422