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
1. This office action is in response to communications filed 1/29/2026 Claims 1, 3 are amended. Claims 4-6 are original. Claim 2 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 4-5, filed 1/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,220,214, Meier et al. (hereinafter Meier) in view of DE 10 2015207982A1, Koehn et al. (hereinafter Koehn) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,220,214, Meier et al. (hereinafter Meier) in view of DE 10 2015207982A1, Koehn et al. (hereinafter Koehn) further in view of U.S. Patent 11178318, Hisatsugu et al. (hereinafter Hisatsugu).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2025 and 2/3/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the claims on 12/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,220,214, Meier et al. (hereinafter Meier) in view of DE 10 2015207982A1, Koehn et al. (hereinafter Koehn) further in view of U.S. Patent 11178318, Hisatsugu et al. (hereinafter Hisatsugu).
2. Regarding Claim 1, Meier discloses A vehicle (Fig. 2: vehicle 100, Col. 4 line 15) comprising:
a center display (Fig. 1: 88 rearview electronic image display; Col. 5 lines2-4, “rearward video images on the rearview electronic image display 88 at an upward, front central location in an interior of the vehicle”);
a side display for a side camera monitor system (Fig. 1: 84 left side electronic image display 84 and right side electronic image display 94); and
an imaging camera configured to image an interior of a vehicle cabin (Fig. 1: Interior Driver-Monitoring Camera 76),
wherein the imaging camera is disposed above the side display (Col. 3 lines 51-54, “the interior driver monitoring camera 76 can be mounted to a steering wheel, a dashboard, a windshield, or to an interior roof at the front of the vehicle.”) and
However, Meier may not explicitly disclose the imaging camera is disposed above on a center side of the vehicle; and
a connection portion between the center display and the side display, wherein the imaging camera is disposed within a range of the center display in a height direction.
Koehn teaches wherein the imaging camera is disposed above on a center side of the vehicle ((See Fig. 1 below; Page 5, “above the display 102 arranged camera 104 for detecting a face of a driver”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the cabin imaging camera of the side camera monitor system (as in Meier) in the manner taught by Koehn-i.e., above the display and on a central axis- in order to provide an unobstructed field of view of the cabin/driver while minimizing obstruction of the driver’s forward view and achieving symmetric packaging on the instrument panel. Kohn teaches that placing the camera above the display on the central axis improves monitoring coverage while avoiding blockage by the steering wheel and occupants.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Hisatsugu teaches a connection portion between the center display and the side display (Fig. 10; Col. 6 lines 55-58, “A pair of a lateral portion 11a located on a right side of the center display portion and a lateral portion 11b located on a left side of the center display portion are provided.” Center display + lateral (side) portions as an integrated unit. Col 7 lines 21-26, “A pair of a lateral portion 11a located on a right side of the center display portion and a lateral portion 11b located on a left side of the center display portion are provided.” Each inner peripheral wall portion of the wind plates is directly connected to the center display plate), wherein the imaging camera is disposed within a range of the center display in a height direction (Figs. 2, 3, 7; Col. 7 lines 21-32, “the camera 71 is located in an arrangement space 63 which is formed between the outer peripheral wall portion 61 and the inner peripheral wall portion 62 of the wind plate 60 in the lateral portion 11 and covered by the outer peripheral wall portion 61 and the inner peripheral wall portion 62 from the visual-recognition side. In addition, in a facing region of the inner peripheral wall portion 62 of the wind plate 60 facing the lens portion 73 of the camera 71, a plate opening hole 62a is formed. Thus, the camera 71 is located in the arrangement space 63, which tends to be a dead space, to allow the arrangement space 63 to be effectively used.” The camera is housed within the enclosed wind plate structure that is co-planar with and bounded by the center display, placing it within the height range of the center display portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
875
691
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hisatsugu’s integrated center-and-lateral display module structure into the Meier in view of Koehn combination. Placing the cabin imaging camera within the height bounds of the center display as taught in Hisatsugu, avoids driver obstruction and reduces visual clutter, producing the predictable result of a more compact, less obstructive display camera assembly.
3. Regarding Claim 3, Meier in view of Koehn discloses The vehicle according to claim 1,
Koehn discloses wherein the imaging camera includes a connection terminal on a center display side ((See Fig. 1 Page 5, “above the display 102 arranged camera 104 for detecting a face of a driver.” A camera includes a connection terminal (power/data port). Camera is positioned on the center side inherently places its connection terminal on the center display side),
Meier in view of Koehn does not explicitly disclose the connection terminal is disposed in a range of the connection portion.
Hisatsugu teaches the connection terminal is disposed in a range of the connection portion (Col. 7 lines21-29, camera 71 is housed within the wind plate structure (arrangement space 63), which is the connection portion between center and side displays).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to route the connection terminal of Koehn’s centrally mounted camera within the connection portion structure as taught by Hisatsugu, since Hisatsugu expressly discloses using the dead space of the wind plate/connection portion to house camera-related components, minimizing protrusion and maintaining a compact assembly.
4. Regarding Claim 4, Meier in view of Koehn discloses The vehicle according to claim 1,
However, Meier in view of Koehn does not explicitly disclose wherein the imaging camera is disposed so that an inclination angle of the imaging camera is different from an inclination angle of the side display.
Further, Hisatsugu teaches wherein the imaging camera is disposed so that an inclination angle of the imaging camera is different from an inclination angle of the side display (Col. 9 lines 10-14, “the camera is located to be inclined with respect to a display surface 10a of the center display portion 10 such that an extension line EL of an optical axis extends through the opening portion of the steering operation portion 4e at the normal position” Col. 7 lines 33-40, “The camera 71 is located with the optical axis OA and the imaging surface 72a thereof being inclined with respect to the visual-recognition-side surface of the display plate 30. Specifically, the camera 71 is inclined such that the lens portion 73 thereof faces the inner peripheral side (i.e., left side) of the vehicular display device 100. Note that an angle of the inclination of the imaging surface 72a with respect to the display plate 30 is set smaller than an angle of the inclination of the inner peripheral wall portion 62 with respect to the display plate 30.” The camera has its own inclination angle (angle of imaging surface 72a relative to display plate 30). The side display/wind plate (inner peripheral wall portion 62) has its own inclination angle).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hisatsugu’s integrated center-and-lateral display module structure into the Meier in view of Koehn combination. Placing the cabin imaging camera within the height bounds of the center display as taught in Hisatsugu, avoids driver obstruction and reduces visual clutter, producing the predictable result of a more compact, less obstructive display camera assembly.
5. Regarding Claim 5, Meier in view of Koehn further in view of Hisatsugu discloses The vehicle according to claim 4,
Hisatsugu discloses wherein the inclination angle of the imaging camera is set so that a face of an occupant is positioned at a center of an imaging range of the imaging camera in an up-down direction (Col. 7 lines 53-62, “the camera 71 of the present embodiment is located at a position at which an imaginary straight line ISL connecting the center of standard eye points CSE and a predetermined point on the opening division line ODL intersects the lateral portion 11.” Col. 9 lines 19-26, “the extension line EL of the optical axis OA is set so as to extend through the center of standard eye points CSE set in the vehicle 1. This can enhance the probability of allowing the face of the passenger to be located at the center of the photographing range FC and photographed.” Col. 9 lines 26-29, “Therefore, it is possible to render the location of the camera 71 less conspicuous, while allowing the passenger to be easily photographed.”).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Hisatsugu’s integrated center-and-lateral display module structure into the Meier in view of Koehn combination. Placing the cabin imaging camera within the height bounds of the center display as taught in Hisatsugu, avoids driver obstruction and reduces visual clutter, producing the predictable result of a more compact, less obstructive display camera assembly.
6. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier in view of Koehn further in view of Hisatsugu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 11,657,694 Schumacher et al. (hereinafter Schumacher).
7. Regarding Claim 6, Meier in view of Koehn further in view of Hisatsugu discloses The vehicle according to claim 1,
However, Meier in view of Koehn further in view of Hisatsugu does not explicitly disclose wherein the side display is disposed at least on a passenger’s seat side, and the imaging camera is disposed on a passenger’s seat side display.
Further, Schumacher teaches wherein the side display is disposed at least on a passenger’s seat side (Fig. 6, Col. 9 lines 30-32, “Each camera monitor system unit 86A-B includes a respective electronic display 88A-B for providing an external vehicle video feed”. Claim 1, “a second display screen assembly positioned on a passenger side of the vehicle”), and the imaging camera is disposed on a passenger’s seat side display (Fig. 6: camera monitor system 86B).
It would have been obvious to (i) reposition the imaging camera of Meier above the display toward the vehicle center using Koehn’s explicit teaching of an above-display, centrally aligned imaging camera, and (ii) implement the passenger-side display-mounted imaging camera arrangement taught by Schumacher for the side-display portion of Meier, resulting in the claimed configuration. Each modification is a simple substitution of known arrangements that improves monitoring performance and packaging efficiency, and the combination yields no unexpected result.
PNG
media_image3.png
806
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
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, John Miller can be reached at (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 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.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights