DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Amended claims 1 thru 20 have been entered into the record.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the specification overcomes the specification objection from the previous office action (4/20/2026). The specification objection is withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims overcomes the claim objections from the previous office action (4/20/2026). The claim objections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections from the previous office action (4/20/2026), with the exception of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection recited below in this office action. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn, and the only pending 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are recited below.
The amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections from the previous office action (4/20/2026). The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
The double patenting rejections are remain as recited in the previous office action (4/20/2026) and are also recited below in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 thru 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 7 is 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 7 recites “a sensor” in line 2, while claim 6 recites “a sensor” in line 3. It is unclear if this is a new sensor or the same sensor (or the external sensor of claim 1). The examiner assumes it is the same sensor as claim 6. If it isn’t, it should be “a second sensor” for continued examination.
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 (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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12 thru 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shibata Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0030212 A1 in view of Seder et al Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0253918 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20 Shibata teaches the claimed method, a flow-chart for explaining an operation of the vehicle outside-image display system (Figure 5), the claimed system, the vehicle configuration of Figures 1 thru 4, and the claimed computer readable medium having instructions executed by the processors, performing the operations of the vehicle outside-image display system (Figure 5),
the claimed the method is performed using the claimed one or more processors, the vehicle outside-image display apparatus 102 includes camera 112, a vehicle outside-image capturing unit 114, an image display device 142, an image transmitting unit 115, a wireless communication interface 152, a following distance measuring unit 161 and a field of vision condition determining unit 162 (Figure 2), and a vehicle outside-image display apparatus 101 includes the camera 111, a vehicle outside-image capturing unit 114, a wireless communication interface 151, an image receiving unit 116, an image combining unit 118, an image display device 141, an image transmitting unit 115, a following distance measuring unit 161 and a field of vision condition determining unit 162 (Figure 3), the vehicle outside-image display apparatuses equate to the claimed one or more processors,
the method comprising:
the claimed determining a requested field of view for an external sensor physically separate from the vehicle, “it is determined by the field-of-vision condition determining unit 162 whether the forward field of vision is good (step S101)” (P[0057] and Figure 5), and “if it is determined in step S101 that the field of vision is not good, it means that the vehicle is either the first vehicle A or the third vehicle C, and accordingly, the vehicle transmits data request information through the wireless communication interface 151 or 153 to the forward vehicle (step S105)” (P[0058] and Figure 5);
the claimed sending a request for the requested field of view, “the vehicle transmits data request information through the wireless communication interface 151 or 153 to the forward vehicle (step S105)” (P[0058] and Figure 5);
the claimed receiving information sensed by the external sensor in the requested field of view, “the vehicle outside-image information 122 or 121 is received from the forward vehicle by the image receiving unit 116 through the wireless communication interface 151 or 153 (step S106). Subsequently, part of the image, captured by the installed camera 111 or 113, in which the field of vision is blocked by the forward vehicle is combined with a portion of the received vehicle outside-image information 122 or 121 to produce the renewed vehicle outside-image information 121or 123 in which the field of vision is cleared (step S107).” (P[0058] and Figure 5), the camera of a forward vehicle equates to the claimed external sensor;
the claimed using the information to make a driving decision for the vehicle, “the combined vehicle outside-image information 121 or 123 is displayed on the image display device 141 or 143 (step S108)” (P[0058] and Figure 5), and the combined image may include a traffic signal 104 (Figure 7g), the traffic signal is used to determine if the light is red, yellow or green and make the appropriate driving decision (stop, slow or continue).
Shibata does not explicitly teach that the claimed vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving mode, and the claimed controlling the autonomous driving mode according to the driving decision, but an autonomous method/system may be applied to a manual system (merely making a vehicle operate in an automatic mode is not patentably distinct). The traffic signal data provided by Shibata may be used by in an autonomous mode or by a person to determine what action to take at the upcoming intersection. Seder et al teach the claimed vehicle is operated in an autonomous driving mode, “Embodiments are envisioned where infotainment graphics are displayed upon the substantially transparent windscreen head up display when it is determined that the vehicle is in a semi-autonomous mode and when the vehicle is in an autonomous mode.” P[0193]. The information determined in Figure 7 of Shibata would be presented on the head up display of Seder et al when the vehicle is in an autonomous mode.
Seder et al further teach the claimed controlling the autonomous driving mode according to the driving decision, the vehicle performs automatic braking, automatic lateral vehicle control P[0125], automatic steering P[0162], and drives in an autonomous mode P[0193]. The autonomous mode of Seder et al would use the traffic information from Figure 7 of Shibata to automatically brake or steer the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for displaying blocked images of Shibata with the autonomous mode controls of Seder et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, assist the vehicle in avoiding a potential collision (Seder et al P[0125]).
Regarding claim 2 Shibata teaches the claimed external sensor is a sensor of another vehicle, “If the data request information is received, an image captured by the camera 112 is transmitted as the vehicle outside-image information 122 by the image transmitting unit 115 through the wireless communication interface 152 to the first vehicle A” P[0057], and camera 112 is on second vehicle B (Figure 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14 Shibata teaches the claimed determining the requested field of view is further based on whether the requested field of view is inaccessible to the vehicle, “in the image captured by the camera 111 installed in the first vehicle A, illustrated in FIG. 7(b), the field of vision is blocked because of the presence of the second vehicle B” (P[0061] and Figure 7), the image being blocked equates to the claimed requested field of view is inaccessible.
Regarding claims 6 and 15 Shibata and Seder et al teach the claimed method of claim 1 and the claimed system of claim 13 (see above). Shibata teach the claimed determining a second field of view that improves an ability of a sensor of the vehicle to sense information about an environment of the autonomous vehicle when supplemented with the requested field of view, “in the image captured by the camera 111 installed in the first vehicle A, illustrated in FIG. 7(b), the field of vision is blocked because of the presence of the second vehicle B” (P[0061] and Figure 7), the image surrounding the vehicle B of Figure 7(b) is from a camera on the vehicle (claimed sensor to sense information about an environment), and “a partial image of the vehicle outside-image information 122 is captured out in such a manner that there will be no mismatch in images at the portion where the image outside the rectangular region 109 and the received vehicle outside-image information 122 are combined, and the partial image is embedded into the rectangular region 109. The vehicle outside-image information 121 thus produced is shown FIG. 7(e)” (P[0061] and Figure 7), the combined image of Figure 7(e) with images from vehicles A and B equates to the claimed supplemented requested field of view, and the image of Figure 7(c) equates to the claimed sensor of the vehicle.
Shibata do not teach the claimed controlling the vehicle based on the second field of view. Seder et al teach the claimed controlling the vehicle based on the second field of view, the vehicle performs automatic braking, automatic lateral vehicle control P[0125], automatic steering P[0162], and drives in an autonomous mode P[0193]. The autonomous mode of Seder et al would use the traffic information from Figure 7 of Shibata to automatically brake or steer the vehicle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for displaying blocked images of Shibata with the autonomous mode controls of Seder et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, assist the vehicle in avoiding a potential collision (Seder et al P[0125]).
Regarding claims 9 and 16 Shibata teaches the claimed information enables the vehicle to perceive beyond an obstacle in a field of view of the vehicle, “Therefore, the first vehicle A receives the vehicle outside-image information 122, which is the image shown in FIG. 7(a), from the second vehicle B ahead, and detects the second vehicle B by such a method of determining the vehicle from the image among pre-registered vehicle image patterns, so as to determine a rectangular region 109, for example, that covers the second vehicle B, as illustrated in FIG. 7(d). Then, the received vehicle outside-image information 122 is reduced in size or cropped so that it fits into the rectangular region 109, and is combined therewith. For example, a partial image of the vehicle outside-image information 122 is captured out in such a manner that there will be no mismatch in images at the portion where the image outside the rectangular region 109 and the received vehicle outside-image information 122 are combined, and the partial image is embedded into the rectangular region 109. The vehicle outside-image information 121 thus produced is shown FIG. 7(e).” (P[0061] and Figure 7).
Regarding claims 10 and 17 Shibata teaches the claimed determining the requested field of view includes identifying an area that a sensor of the vehicle is unable to perceive, “in the image captured by the camera 111 installed in the first vehicle A, illustrated in FIG. 7(b), the field of vision is blocked because of the presence of the second vehicle B” (P[0061] and Figure 7), and “in the image captured by the camera 113 installed in the third vehicle C, shown in FIG. 7(c), the field of vision is blocked by the presence of the first vehicle A and the second vehicle B” (P[0062] and Figure 7), the vehicles are unable to perceive the areas blocked by the vehicles in front of them.
Regarding claims 12 and 19 Shibata does not explicitly teach the claimed driving decision includes determining whether to make a turn at an intersection, but deciding to turn would typically be a function of navigation to a destination and would likely be predetermined as part of routing the vehicle. Seder et al teach, turn-by turn directions are projected based on the vehicle location along the route and on the road P[0157], and “Navigation arrow 264 is depicted, registered to the specific street to be turned onto in intersection 262.” P[0184]. The turning instructions of Seder et al would be included as part of the display of Shibata. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for displaying blocked images of Shibata with the autonomous mode and providing turning instructions of Seder et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, assist the vehicle in avoiding a potential collision (Seder et al P[0125]).
Claims 3, 4, 8, 11 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shibata Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0030212 A1 and Seder et al Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0253918 A1 as applied to claims 1, 6 and 13 above, and further in view of Demirdjian et al Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0218125 A1.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Shibata and Seder et al do not teach the claimed external sensor is on a traffic signal or a sign, but any location of a sensor that provides information about obscured areas could provide the data to the vehicle. Demirdjian et al cameras 4 (Figure 2) provide information about the vehicle hidden behind the building (Figure 1), the cameras are located on a pole at an intersection (Figure 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pole that supports the cameras 4 could have an additional use of being a traffic signal pole or have a sign attached to it. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for displaying blocked images of Shibata and the autonomous mode controls of Seder et al with the cameras mounted on a pole to provide information about obscured areas of Demirdjian et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, receive information related to images of the external environment beyond what the driver can actually see (Demirdjian et al P[0004]).
Regarding claim 8 Shibata and Seder et al do not explicitly teach the claimed information identifies traffic not included in the second field of view. Demirdjian et al teach, “FIG. 1 shows the system 100 as operated in a traffic scene which includes different cameras or sensors mounted to different types of objects. The system 100 includes a fixed camera system 1, a plurality of moving camera systems 2, and a user vehicle system 3” (P[0023] and Figure 1), and “FIGS. 6A and 6B show two different images corresponding to the traffic scene depicted in FIG. 1, which are transmitted from the fixed camera station to the user vehicle.” P[0048], the cameras of Figure 1 provide information on the traffic obstructed by the building (claimed traffic not included in the second field of view) to the vehicle approaching the intersection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for displaying blocked images of Shibata and the autonomous mode controls of Seder et al with the cameras mounted on a pole to provide information about obscured areas that cannot be seen by the vehicle of Demirdjian et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, receive information related to images of the external environment beyond what the driver can actually see (Demirdjian et al P[0004]).
Regarding claims 11 and 18 Shibata and Seder et al do not explicitly teach the claimed information relates to oncoming traffic entering an intersection, but the images from Shibata may include traffic at an intersection. Demirdjian et al teach, “FIG. 1 shows the system 100 as operated in a traffic scene which includes different cameras or sensors mounted to different types of objects. The system 100 includes a fixed camera system 1, a plurality of moving camera systems 2, and a user vehicle system 3” (P[0023] and Figure 1), and “FIGS. 6A and 6B show two different images corresponding to the traffic scene depicted in FIG. 1, which are transmitted from the fixed camera station to the user vehicle.” P[0048], the cameras of Figure 1 provide information on the traffic obstructed by the building to the vehicle approaching the intersection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for displaying blocked images of Shibata and the autonomous mode controls of Seder et al with the cameras mounted on a pole to provide information about obscured areas at an intersection of Demirdjian et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, receive information related to images of the external environment beyond what the driver can actually see (Demirdjian et al P[0004]).
Claims 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shibata Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0030212 A1 and Seder et al Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0253918 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Broggi et al Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0291130 A1.
Regarding claim 7 Shibata and Seder et al teach the claimed method of claims 1 and 6 (see above), Shibata and Seder et al do not teach the claimed controlling the vehicle includes adjusting a position or orientation of a sensor to the second field of view. The examiner assumes that the claimed “sensor” of this claim is a sensor mounted on the vehicle (see 112b rejection of claim 7 above). Broggi et al teach, “the pitch, yaw, and roll of the cameras 168, 170, 172 may be adjusted in any suitable fashion” (P[0051] and Figures 18 thru 23). The adjustment of the cameras of Broggi et al would be used with the cameras of Shibata to obtain improved pictures of the vehicle environment. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for displaying blocked images of Shibata and the autonomous mode controls of Seder et al with the adjustable pitch, yaw and roll of the cameras of Broggi et al in order to, with a reasonable expectation of success, reduce the processing requirements of the images taken by the cameras (Broggi et al P[0050]).
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 1, 6 thru 10, 13 thru 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 thru 10 and 14 thru 16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,760,092 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are recited more broadly (without many of the limitations of the patented claims).
Claims 1, 6 thru 10, 13 thru 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,829,152 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are recited more broadly (without many of the limitations of the patented claims).
Claims 1, 6 thru 10, 13 thru 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 9 thru 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,230,140 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are recited more broadly (without many of the limitations of the patented claims).
Related Art
The examiner points to Sakai et al PGPub 2009/0140881 A1 as related art, but not relied upon for any rejection. Sakai et al is directed to a camera of a ground-based information dispatch apparatus captures a blind-spot image, showing a region that is a blind spot with respect to a vehicle driver. A vehicle-mounted camera captures a forward-view image corresponding to the viewpoint of the driver, and the forward-view image is transmitted to the information dispatch apparatus together with vehicle position and direction information and camera parameters. Based on the received information, the blind-spot image is converted to a corresponding image having the viewpoint of the vehicle driver, and the forward-view image and viewpoint-converted blind-spot image are combined to form a synthesized image, which is transmitted to the vehicle. (abstract)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DALE W HILGENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-9635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights