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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 10, 18, and 23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,496. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims represent a broader form of those independent claims in the ‘496 patent.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically there does not appear to be support in the specification for “obscured object is present in the external environment within the area of the blind spot of the vehicle; and change the display of the instrument representation in the electronic display” found in the independent claims. Dependent claims inherit this issue and are similarly rejected. Specific and clear citations are respectfully requested.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 2-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Di Censo et al. (US App. 20150245017 hereinafter referred to as “Di”).
In regard to claim 2, Di teaches a display system for a vehicle (see at least Abstract and Para. 13), comprising: an electronic display (see Para. 13); a sensor interface to receive video data of an external environment from at least one camera disposed on the vehicle, the external environment including an area of a blind spot of the vehicle (see Para. 45 hood blindspot and Figs. 1A-1d); and processing circuitry, operably coupled to the electronic display and the sensor interface, configured to:display an instrument representation in the electronic display, the instrument representation corresponding to operation of the vehicle (see Para. 14-15 transparent instrument panel overlay); and in response to an event occurring in the vehicle (see Para. 14 and 51 user controls display video and placement of items on the display): display a view of an obscured object in the electronic display based on the video data, wherein the obscured object is present in the external environment within the area of the blind spot of the vehicle (see Para. 14-15); and change the display of the instrument representation in the electronic display (see Para. 14-15, 51 transparent instrument panel overlay can change using driving context or selection of position of elements by user input).
In regard to claim 10, Di teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see at least Abstract and Para. 58) capable of storing instructions that, when executed, cause at least one processing device of a display system (see Para. 13) for a vehicle to: receive video data of an external environment from at least one camera disposed on the vehicle, the external environment including an area of a blind spot of the vehicle (see Para. 13, 17, 30, and 45 camera for hood blindspot and Figs. 1A-1d); display an instrument representation in an electronic display of the vehicle, the instrument representation corresponding to operation of the vehicle (see Para. 14-15, 26 transparent instrument panel overlay includes speedometer); and, in response to an event occurring in the vehicle (see Para. 14 and 51 user controls display video and placement of items on the display): display a view of an obscured object in the electronic display based on the video data, wherein the obscured object is present in the external environment within the area of the blind spot of the vehicle (see Para. 14-15); and change the display of the instrument representation in the electronic display (see Para. 14-15, 51 transparent instrument panel overlay can change using driving context or selection of position of elements by user input).
In regard to claim 18, Di teaches an apparatus for a vehicle (see at least Abstract and Para. 13), comprising: means for capturing video data of an external environment from at least one camera disposed on the vehicle, the external environment including an area of a blind spot of the vehicle (see Para. 13, 17, 30, and 45 camera for hood blindspot and Figs. 1A-1d); means for displaying an instrument representation in an electronic dashboard display, the instrument representation corresponding to operation of the vehicle (see Para. 14-15, 26 transparent instrument panel overlay includes speedometer); means for displaying, in response to an event occurring in the vehicle (see Para. 14 and 51 user controls display video and placement of items on the display), a view of an obscured object in the electronic dashboard display based on the video data, wherein the obscured object is present in the external environment within the area of the blind spot of the vehicle (see Para. 14-15); and means for changing, in response to the event occurring in the vehicle, the instrument representation in the electronic dashboard display (see Para. 14-15, 51 transparent instrument panel overlay can change using driving context or selection of position of elements by user input).
In regard to claim 23, Di teaches a method (see at least Abstract), comprising: receiving video data of an external environment from at least one camera disposed on a vehicle, the external environment including an area of a blind spot of the vehicle (see Para. 13, 17, 30, and 45 camera for hood blindspot and Figs. 1A-1d); displaying an instrument representation in an electronic display of the vehicle, the instrument representation corresponding to operation of the vehicle (see Para. 14-15, 26 transparent instrument panel overlay includes speedometer); and, in response to an event occurring in the vehicle (see Para. 14 and 51 user controls display video and placement of items on the display): displaying a view of an obscured object in the electronic display based on the video data, wherein the obscured object is present in the external environment within the area of the blind spot of the vehicle (see Para. 14-15); and changing the displaying of the instrument representation (see Para. 14-15, 51 transparent instrument panel overlay can change using driving context or selection of position of elements by user input).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Di teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 10 respectively. Di further teaches wherein the instrument representation includes one or more objects, and wherein to change the display of the instrument representation includes to move the one or more objects of the instrument representation relative to the display of the view of the obscured object (see Para. 14-15, 51 transparent instrument panel overlay can change using driving context or selection of position of elements by user input including Figs. 2A-2C with different depths).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Di teaches all the limitations of claims 3 and 11 respectively. Di further teaches wherein to move the display of the instrument representation includes to superimpose the one or more objects of the instrument representation onto the view of the obscured object (see Para. 14-15, 51 and Fig. 2C).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Di teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 10 respectively. Di further teaches wherein the instrument representation includes one or more virtual gauge or dial corresponding to the operation of the vehicle (see Para. 26 speedometer).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Di teaches all the limitations of claims 5 and 13 respectively. Di further teaches wherein the one or more virtual gauge or dial includes a speedometer or revolutions per minute (RPM) gauge (see Para. 26 speedometer).
Regarding claims 7 and 15 and 26, Di teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 10 and 23 respectively. Di further teaches wherein the electronic display is included in a dashboard of the vehicle (See Para. 20 and 25).
Regarding claims 8 and 16 and 27, Di teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 10 and 23 respectively. Di further teaches wherein the blind spot is occluded from view of a driver by a portion of the vehicle (see Para. 13, 17, 30, and 45 camera for hood blindspot and Figs. 1A-1D).
Regarding claims 9 and 17 and 28, Di teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 10 and 23respectively. Di further teaches wherein the event is an action from a driver (see Para. 14-15, 51 transparent instrument panel overlay can change using driving context or selection of position of elements by user input).
Regarding claim 19, Di teaches all the limitations of claim 18. Di further teaches
wherein the instrument representation includes one or more objects, and wherein changing the instrument representation includes: moving the one or more objects of the instrument representation relative to a display of the view of the obscured object (see Para. 14 and 51 user controls display video and placement of items on the display); and superimposing the one or more objects of the instrument representation onto the view of the obscured object (see Fig. 2C speedometer in front of cat).
Regarding claim 20, Di teaches all the limitations of claim 18. Di further teaches wherein the instrument representation includes one or more virtual gauge or dial corresponding to the operation of the vehicle, and wherein the one or more virtual gauge or dial includes a speedometer or revolutions per minute (RPM) gauge (see Para. 26 speedometer and Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 21, Di teaches all the limitations of claim 18. Di further teaches
wherein the electronic dashboard display is provided by a display means included in a dashboard of the vehicle (See Para. 20 and 25).
Regarding claim 22, Di teaches all the limitations of claim 18. Di further teaches
wherein wherein the blind spot is occluded from view of a driver by a portion of the vehicle (see Para. 13, 17, 30, and 45 camera for hood blindspot and Figs. 1A-1D).
Regarding claim 24, Di teaches all the limitations of claim 23. Di further teaches wherein the instrument representation includes one or more objects, and wherein changing the displaying of the instrument representation includes:moving the one or more objects of the instrument representation relative to the displaying of the view of the obscured object (see Para. 14 and 51 user controls display video and placement of items on the display); and superimposing the one or more objects of the instrument representation onto the view of the obscured object (see Fig. 2C speedometer in front of cat).
Regarding claim 25, Di teaches all the limitations of claim 23. Di further teaches wherein the instrument representation includes one or more virtual gauge or dial corresponding to the operation of the vehicle, and wherein the one or more virtual gauge or dial includes a speedometer or revolutions per minute (RPM) gauge (see Para. 26 speedometer and Fig. 2C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee et al. (US App. 20140019005); Boss et al. (US Pat. 9469195); Kubota et al. (US App. 20080309764).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/MATTHEW YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625