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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the amended claim1, applicant argues that Prabhakar does not disclose that a steering wheel input device is ever used to adjust what is shown on an electronic display when it is already displaying an image feed from a camera.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees. Prabhakar in Para [094] describes that the driver requests(input) camera activation, the video/image displayed on vehicle display 276 based on selected mode, and image processing circuit dynamically adjusts the cropped portion of the captured image or video as the vehicle approaches the crest of the uphill slope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11-12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Prabhakar et al US 2019/0327415(hereinafter Prabhakar).
Regarding claim1, Prabhakar discloses a camera monitor system (CMS) for a vehicle, comprising: a camera configured to record an image feed of an external environment of a vehicle(fig.2 cameras 160); an electronic display configured to display at least a portion of the image feed([0053], fig. 2 vehicle display 276 displays the images and videos captured by the cameras); a steering wheel including at least one input device(fig. 3 string wheel 308, [0077], steering wheel 308 includes physical button to activate the camera system); and processing circuitry operatively connected to memory(fig. 2 processor 206 and memory 208), and configured to, while said at least a portion of the image feed is displayed on the electronic display: receive a command from the at least one input device([094] ,the driver requests(input) camera activation and image processing circuit dynamically adjusts the cropped portion of the captured image or video as the vehicle approaches the crest of the uphill slope); and based on the command, adjust what is shown on the electronic display ([094] ,the driver requests(input) camera activation and image processing circuit dynamically adjusts the cropped portion of the captured image or video as the vehicle approaches the crest of the uphill slope).
Regarding claim2, Prabhakar discloses the CMS of claim 1, wherein the at least one input device is a non-touchscreen input device ([0067], [0077], physical button).
Regarding claim3, Prabhakar discloses the CMS of claim 2, wherein the at least one input device includes at least one of a button, a dial, a paddle, a rocker switch, a joystick, a touch pad ([0067], [0077], physical button).
Regarding claim 9, Prabhakar discloses the CMS of claim1, wherein to adjust what is shown on the electronic display, the processing circuitry is configured to display a menu of the CMS ([0071], multimedia display provides one or more virtual button or menu selections to activate and operate vehicular camera system).
Claim11 is rejected for similar reasons as discussed in claim1 above.
Claim12 is rejected for similar reasons as discussed in claim3 above.
Claim16 is rejected for similar reasons as discussed in claim7 above.
Claim18 is rejected for similar reasons as discussed in claim9 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claims 4, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhakar as applied to claims1-3, 9, 11-12, 18 above, and further in view of Camhi et al US 2010/0014711(hereinafter Camhi).
Regarding claim4, Prabhakar teaches all the limitations of claim1 including, wherein the steering wheel comprises a central portion and a plurality of spokes extending outwards from the central portion, (see fig. 3 steering wheel 308, [0077], the camera activation system can be activated manually when the driver presses the physical button on the steering wheel 308) but does not teach and Camhi teaches the at least one input device is part of one or more of the plurality of spokes ([0057], push button 36 and scroll wheels 34 of the spokes 38 of the steering wheel 39, fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include buttons and scroll wheels on the spokes of the steering wheel of a vehicle as in Camhi in to allow the driver to perform input effortlessly.
Claim13 is rejected for similar reason as discussed in claim4 above.
Claims 5, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhakar as applied to claims1-3, 9, 11-12, 18 above, and further in view of Kubota et al US 2024/0190441(hereinafter Kubota).
Regarding claim5, Parbhakar teaches all the limitations of claim1 including, wherein the steering wheel comprises a central portion and a plurality of spokes extending outwards from the central portion, (see fig. 3 steering wheel 308, [0077], the camera activation system can be activated manually when the driver presses the physical button on the steering wheel 308) but does not teach and Kubota teaches and the at least one input device is part of the central portion(fig. 5a-5d, operation switch or an operation panel provided on the hub 43 and the spoke 44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include operation switch/panel on central portion of the steering wheel of a vehicle as in Kubota to allow the driver to perform input effortlessly.
Claim14 is rejected for similar reasons as discussed in claim5 above.
Claims6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhakar as applied to claims 1-3, 9, 11-12, 18 above, and further in view of Shin et al US 2023/0012629(hereinafter Shin).
Regarding claim6, Prabhakar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above but does not teach and Shin teaches wherein to adjust what is shown on the electronic display, the processing circuitry is configured to adjust a brightness or a zoom level of the image feed on the electronic display ([0016-0017], [0101], zooming in and out a FoV).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform zooming as in Shin to view the subject of interest clearly.
Claim15 is rejected for similar reason as discussed in claim6 above.
Claims7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhakar as applied to claims 1-3, 9, 11-12, 18 above, and further in view of Larson et al US 2020/0361384(hereinafter Larson).
Regarding claim7, Prabhakar teaches all the limitations of claim1 above but does not teach and Larson teaches the camera faces rearward to include at least a portion of a trailer of the vehicle in the image feed, and to adjust what is shown on the electronic display, the processing circuitry is configured to pan the image feed on the electronic display([0032], panning used to adjust displayed image to show portions of the section behind the vehicle that is towing a trailer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pan displayed image to the driver as in Larson so that the trailer does not obstruct the rearward viewing while turning or allow the trailer to leave the driver’s view ([0032).
Claim16 is rejected for similar reason as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claims 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prabhakar as applied to claims 1-3, 9, 11-12, 18 above, and further in view of Hartranft et al US 2014/0060580(hereinafter Hartranft).
Regarding claim10, Prabhakar teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach and Hartranft teaches receive an additional command from the at least one input device; and based on the additional command, activate feature of the camera comprises a debris clearance feature of the camera ([0081], In accordance with one embodiment of the present invention, the system of the present invention (e.g., 110 or 210) actuates lens washing in response to driver control input or automatically).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the system to perform an actuation of lens washing in response to driver control input as in Hartranft to remove a debris from the lens of a camera on demand effectively.
Claim19 is rejected for similar reason as discussed in claim10 above.
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 GIRUMSEW WENDMAGEGN whose telephone number is (571)270-1118. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-7:00 PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
GIRUMSEW WENDMAGEGN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/GIRUMSEW WENDMAGEGN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights