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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed on the information disclosure statement filed on 01/07/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Examiner may require and is requiring descriptive text labels. Specifically, the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels (see Figs. 2-3). See MPEP 608.02(b) ¶6.22. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 3, recites “said field of view of said at least one camera” but should recite – said field of view of said at least one exterior camera –
Claim 7, line 16, recites “an on-board display device” but should recite – the on-board display device –
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “module for…” in claim 7, line 10, “module for…” in claim 7, line 11, “module for…” in claim 7, line 15, “processing module implements…” in claim 8, and “module for…” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the model of the vehicle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasoning.
Claim 6, line 3, recites “a programmable electronic device”. Claim 1, line 6, recites “an on-board programmable electronic device”. It is unclear to the Examiner if the programmable electronic device is the same as the programmable electronic device in claim 1 or if this is a new or different programmable electronic device being introduced. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite. For purposes of examination the Examiner interprets this to be the same programmable electronic device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the claims are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1-6 are directed towards a method, i.e., process. Claims 7-11 are directed towards a system, i.e., machine.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1-6 (also, the system in claims 7-11, respectively) is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. With regard to independent claims 1 and 7, the method/system (or computer implemented functionality) recites the steps of: (a) estimating a position of the vehicle user's eyes and (b) 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. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). For example, a person can estimate a position (e.g., height) of the vehicle user’s eyes and perform image processing to determine/generate a representation of extended images for the outline of the hood, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the method is being performed by a computer processor (i.e., computer) does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a “vehicle being equipped with at least one exterior camera having a field of view oriented towards the low front end of said vehicle, and including said visible area and concealed area” and “the method being implemented by a computing processor of an on-board programmable electronic device connected to said at least one exterior camera”. The vehicle equipped with at least one exterior camera having a field of view oriented towards the low front end of said vehicle does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The computing processor of an on-board programmable electronic device connected to said at least one exterior camera is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Displaying said extended images on an on-board display device, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, displaying said extended images on an on-board display device is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 7 recites the additional limitations of a “vehicle being equipped with at least one exterior camera having a field of view oriented towards the low front end of said vehicle, and including said visible area and concealed area” and “the display system comprising said at least one exterior camera, an on-board programmable electronic device connected to said at least one exterior camera, the on-board programmable electronic device comprising a computing processor and an on-board display device”. The vehicle equipped with at least one exterior camera having a field of view oriented towards the low front end of said vehicle and the display system comprising said at least one exterior camera does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The on-board programmable electronic device comprising a computing processor and an on-board display device is simply a computer recited at a high level of generality. The generic computer is used to perform the abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application. Outputting data is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Displaying said extended images on an on-board display device, as claimed, is outputting data. Therefore, displaying said extended images on an on-board display device is insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The following computer functions have been recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality): receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Displaying, i.e., outputting, said extended images on an on-board display device is transmitting data over a network (i.e., from one computing device networked to another computing device). Therefore, the limitation “displaying said extended images on an on-board display device” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1 and 7 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 7 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Further, dependent claims 2-6 and 8-11 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element. As such, claims 2-6 and 8-11 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 the 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 the 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 the 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ballew et al. (US 20250187541 A1) is pertinent because it relates to systems and methods for in-vehicle display of exterior images to mitigate blind spots.
Toler (US 11912429 B2) is pertinent because it is a display system for a vehicle having a windshield and vehicle structure outside the windshield.
Enz et al. (US 20160347250 A1) is pertinent because it is a vehicle system for providing indirect view around a commercial vehicle.
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