DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/989,742 filed on December 20, 2024 in which claims 1-5 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are pending, of which claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 20, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe US Publication 2021/0023994 (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a vehicle surrounding video display device configured to display a surrounding video around a vehicle configured to execute automatic parking control for causing the vehicle to automatically enter a predetermined parking slot or automatically leave the parking slot (Watanabe ¶¶ 26, 55) by disclosing the vehicle includes a video display device (Watanabe ¶ 26) and that the vehicle performs autonomous parking. (Watanabe ¶ 55). Additionally, Watanabe discloses “the vehicle surrounding video display device comprising: a video generator configured to generate a plurality of surrounding videos having different viewpoints based on an image captured by a camera mounted on the vehicle” (Watanabe ¶¶ 28, 60, Fig. 5) by disclosing that the images are displayed by video (Watanabe ¶ 28) and giving an example of two videos being shown with different viewpoints. (Watanabe ¶ 60, Fig. 5). Further, Watanabe discloses “a video display controller configured to select a surrounding video corresponding to progress of the automatic parking control from among the plurality of surrounding videos generable by the video generator during execution of the automatic parking control, and display the surrounding video on a display device of the vehicle” (Watanabe ¶78, Fig. 11) where a video is displayed corresponding to the progress of parking. This must necessarily have been selected in order to be displayed.
Regarding claim 2, Watanabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watanabe discloses “an obstacle detector configured to detect an obstacle present around the vehicle” (Watanabe ¶ 41) by performing object detection around the vehicle. Further, Watanabe discloses “wherein the video generator is configured to when the obstacle is detected by the obstacle detector, generate, as the surrounding video, a video in which the obstacle is emphasized” (Watanabe ¶ 62, Fig. 5) where underfoot indicator G6 indicates an obstacle in the form of a pedestrian.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watanabe discloses “wherein the video display controller is configured to when forward travel control for causing the vehicle to travel forward to a predetermined turn position, stop control for stopping the vehicle at the turn position, and reverse travel control for causing the vehicle to travel in reverse from the turn position to a predetermined position in the parking slot are executed as the automatic parking control” (Watanabe ¶¶ 87-88, 90) where the transmission switches from forward travelling to reverse travelling by the guidance controller (Watanabe ¶ 90) and indicating that the vehicle temporarily stops at position 46(a). (Watanabe ¶ 87). This may be as part of automatic parking. (Watanabe ¶ 88). Further, Watanabe discloses “display different surrounding videos on the display device during execution of the forward travel control, during execution of the stop control, and during execution of the reverse travel control” (Watanabe Figs. 13-14) where the figures show that different surrounding videos are shown during the process of parking.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watanabe discloses “the video generator is configured to generate, as the plurality of surrounding videos, a front viewpoint video obtained by imaging a front area from the vehicle” (Watanabe Fig. 5) where fig. 5 shows a front viewpoint image. Further, Watanabe discloses “generate, as the plurality of surrounding videos … a rear viewpoint video obtained by imaging a rear area from the vehicle” (Watanabe Fig. 14) where fig. 14 shows a rear viewpoint video. Moreover, Watanabe discloses “generate, as the plurality of surrounding videos … an obliquely upper viewpoint video obtained by viewing the vehicle obliquely from above” (Watanabe Fig. 14) where fig. 14 additionally shows an obliquely upper viewpoint video. Likewise, Watanabe discloses “the video display controller is configured to display, on the display device, the front viewpoint video during the execution of the forward travel control” (Watanabe ¶ 60) by disclosing that the image of fig. 5 is shown when the vehicle is in the forward traveling state. Watanabe also discloses “display … the rear viewpoint video during the execution of the stop control,” (Watanabe ¶ 90) by disclosing that at timing (e) of fig. 14 is shown when the transmission switches from forward to reverse, which a person of ordinary skill would know requires a temporary stop to avoid damaging the transmission. Finally, Watanabe discloses “display … the obliquely upper viewpoint video during the execution of the reverse travel control” (Watanabe ¶ 84) by displaying bird’s eye view image (i.e., the obliquely upper viewpoint) while the vehicle is in reverse.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Yamanaka et al., US Publication 2021/0179072 (hereinafter Yamanaka).
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Watanabe does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the video generator is configured to generate, as the obliquely upper viewpoint video, a video obtained by superimposing a predicted passing line indicating a boundary of an area that a vehicle body of the vehicle is predicted to pass through by the reverse travel control.”
However, Yamanaka discloses an autonomous vehicle parking assist system “wherein the video generator is configured to generate, as the obliquely upper viewpoint video, a video obtained by superimposing a predicted passing line indicating a boundary of an area that a vehicle body of the vehicle is predicted to pass through by the reverse travel control” ( ¶ 80, Fig. 4B) where parking lines are superimposed on the overhead image, which predict where the vehicle will travel during parking.
Watanabe and Yamanaka are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of autonomous vehicles with parking assist systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Watanabe and Yamanaka before him or her to modify the overhead images of Watanabe to include the passing lines of Yamanaka.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Watanabe teaches the “base device” for a parking assist system including a plurality of views. Further, Yamanaka teaches the “known technique” for including passing lines in a view during the use of a parking assist system that is applicable to the base device of Watanabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al., US Publication 2022/0114893, Parking assist system including a plurality of views.
Morita, US Publication 2022/0308345, Parking assist system including a plurality of views.
Choi et al., US Publication 2023/0234560, Parking assist system including a plurality of views.
Avadhanam et al., US Publication 2023/0316773, Parking assist system including a plurality of views.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662