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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 26 May 2026.
Claim(s) 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the objections to the drawings and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings and objection to claim(s) 5 and 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 2, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim(s) 2, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, Examiner agrees this is “improving the driver’s perception of the low front end area of a vehicle, including areas concealed by the vehicle hood, in order to improve maneuvering safety and visibility”. The rejection of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see remarks at page(s) 5-7, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Zhang have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues:
“Zhang does not disclose generating a graphical outline representation of the hood superimposed onto captured images as a function of the driver’s eye position””
The Examiner’s Response
With respect to independent claims 1 and 7, Applicant argues the limitation of “processing images captured by said at least one exterior camera to obtain extended images of the low front end of the vehicle, implementing a superimposition, on each image captured by said at least one exterior camera, of a representation of an outline of the front hood of the vehicle, said representation being produced as a function of said position of the eyes of the user of the vehicle” is not taught by Zhang. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Zhang does not explicitly use the exact wording of the Applicant’s claim, Zhang does suggest the limitations, as broadly interpreted. Zhang teaches matching the eye position information of the driver with the three-dimensional reconstruction image outside the vehicle and determining a front-end image of the vehicle under the view angle of the driver (see at least page 3). Additionally, Zhang teaches carrying out enhancement processing on the front-end image of the vehicle under the view angle of the driver and projecting the optimal image output by the enhancement processing onto the front windshield of the vehicle (see at least page 3). While the Examiner agrees that the exact language of the claim limitation is not present in the disclosure of Zhang, the teachings of Zhang does suggest Applicant’s limitation in the invention under a broadest reasonable interpretation. Additionally, the Applicant argues the front hood of the vehicle is superimposed on the image instead of the image on the hood. However, the Examiner notes this rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 not 35 U.S.C. 102, and whether the front hood of the vehicle is superimposed on the image or the image superimposed on the hood is effectively the same thing. The purpose of superimposition is to layer one thing over another so both of which are still evident. The disclosure of Zhang is doing this same thing by projecting the optimal image output by the enhancement processing onto the front windshield of the vehicle. Applicant also argues Zhang relies on transparent augmented-reality projection through the windshield rather than graphical reconstruction of the hood contour on a display screen. The Examiner notes a “graphical reconstruction of the hood contour on a display screen” is significantly narrower than the current recited claim. Additionally, the Examiner also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 not 35 U.S.C. 102 due to this projection of Zhang not being displayed “on” an on-board display such as a screen. However, Zhang still uses an on-board display device to project the optimal image output onto the windshield which is still creating a display of a superimposition of the hood and image output of the front-end. Therefore, it is obvious that these could be interchangeable display devices that have the same result or use. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below made over Zhang et al. (CN 117237922 A) is maintained.
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 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) 1, 4-7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 117237922 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Zhang teaches a method for displaying extended images of a low front end of a vehicle having a front hood (abstract), each extended image comprising an area visible to a user of the vehicle and an area concealed by the front hood of the vehicle (page 3 “determining the external position of an external picture which can be seen by the driver”), said vehicle being equipped with at least one exterior camera having a field of view oriented towards the low front end of said vehicle (page 3 “image acquisition module” “front-end image”), and including said visible area and concealed area (page 3 “determining the external position of an external picture which can be seen by the driver under the visual angle; and determining a front-stop image of the vehicle under the view angle of the driver from the three-dimensional reconstructed image according to the relation between the eye position information of the driver and the external position”), the method being implemented by a computing processor of an on-board programmable electronic device connected to said at least one exterior camera (page 9 “processing apparatus”), and comprising the steps of: estimating a position of the vehicle user's eyes (page 3 “determining eye position information of a driver of the vehicle”), processing images captured by said at least one exterior camera to obtain extended images of the low front end of the vehicle (page 3 “matching the eye position information of the driver with the three-dimensional reconstruction image outside the vehicle, and determining a front-gear image of the vehicle under the view angle of the driver”), implementing a superimposition, on each image captured by said at least one exterior camera, of a representation of an outline of the front hood of the vehicle (page 3 “carrying out enhancement processing on the front-end image of the vehicle under the view angle of the driver, and projecting the optimal image output by the enhancement processing onto the front windshield of the vehicle”), said representation being produced as a function of said position of the eyes of the user of the vehicle page 3 “carrying out enhancement processing on the front-end image of the vehicle under the view angle of the driver”.
While Zhang does not explicitly teach displaying said extended images on an on-board display device. Zhang teaches projecting the image by the enhancement processing onto the front windshield of the vehicle in a real-time projection mode, i.e., the front-end image under the view angle of the drive is displayed on the windshield to be viewed by the driver (see page 3 of Zhang).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and device for processing front-end image of vehicle of Zhang to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, projecting the image by the enhancement processing onto the front windshield of the vehicle in real-time rather than the general displaying said extended images on an on-board display device, as taught by Zhang, to provide improving the comfort of driving observation and make up for the defect of sight obstruction. (Zhang at page 2)
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, implemented in a vehicle further comprising an interior camera facing an interior of the vehicle (pages 2-3 “acquiring second image information of the interior of the vehicle through a second image acquisition device”), the estimating of a position of the user's eyes comprising a determining of the position of the user's eyes using images captured by said interior camera (pages 2-3 “acquiring second image information of the interior of the vehicle through a second image acquisition device” “determining eye position information of a driver of the vehicle according to the second image information”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the method according to claim 1, comprising a step of correcting said extended images to obtain corrected extended images prior to the display step (page 3 “carrying out enhancement processing on the front-end image of the vehicle under the view angle of the driver” “”), the correction step being configured to transform said field of view of said at least one exterior camera into a user's field of view according to said position of the user's eyes (page 3 “carrying out three-dimensional reconstruction on a picture of the exterior of the vehicle”, “determining eye position information of a driver of the vehicle”, “matching the eye position information of the driver with the three-dimensional reconstruction image outside the vehicle, and determining a front-gear image of the vehicle under the view angle of the driver” and “carrying out enhancement processing on the front-end image of the vehicle under the view angle of the driver”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising software instructions which, when executed by a programmable electronic device, implement the method according to claim 1 (page 7 “memory for storing the processor-executable instructions”).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches a vehicle comprising the system according to claim 7 (page 9 “vehicle”).
Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 117237922 A) in view of Pohl et al. (US 11634142 B2).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Zhang does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein said processing implements a calculation of said representation of the outline of the front hood of the vehicle further using previously stored information relating to a model of the vehicle. However, Pohl discloses blind spot detection and teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein said processing implements a calculation of said representation of the outline of the front hood of the vehicle further using previously stored information relating to a model of the vehicle (Col. 7, lines 38-54, “blind spots may be determined based on a make and/or a model of the vehicle” and “lookup table or other source of information which may provide blind spot data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and device for processing front-end image of vehicle of Zhang to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein said processing implements a calculation of said representation of the outline of the front hood of the vehicle further using previously stored information relating to a model of the vehicle, as taught by Pohl, to provide a memory containing information which may provide blind spot data based on make and/or model of a vehicle. (Pohl at Col. 7, lines 46-50)
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 117237922 A) in view of Kim et al. (US 20160090043 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the position of the user's eyes is predetermined and previously recorded. However, Kim discloses a blind spot display method and apparatus and teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the position of the user's eyes is predetermined and previously recorded (¶[0013] “receiving information regarding positions of a driver's eyes from a driver state monitoring system” and then “calculating blind spots and viewable spots using the information regarding positions of the driver's eyes”, i.e., the position of the user’s eyes is established in advance or prior to determination and output of blind spot coverage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and device for processing front-end image of vehicle of Zhang to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein the position of the user's eyes is predetermined and previously recorded, as taught by Kim, to provide minimization of blind spots and enabling safe traveling. (Kim at ¶[0009])
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 117237922 A) in view of Hardy et al. (US 20170182942 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang does not explicitly teach the system according to claim 7, wherein said on-board display device is a display screen arranged on a dashboard of said vehicle. However, Hardy discloses an apparatus and method for displaying information and teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein said on-board display device is a display screen arranged on a dashboard of said vehicle (¶[0065] “projection means may be arranged to project an image onto an interior of the vehicle, such as onto a dashboard”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method and device for processing front-end image of vehicle of Zhang to provide, with a reasonable expectation of success, wherein said on-board display device is a display screen arranged on a dashboard of said vehicle, as taught by Hardy, to provide improving a driver's view ahead of a vehicle. (Hardy at ¶[0003])
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor L Knight whose telephone number is (571)272-5817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/C.L.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
