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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A.I and Species BVII corresponding to claims 5-6, 20-24 and 27 in the reply filed on 7/21/26 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 5-6, 20-24 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that errors in the requirement for election of species. This is not found persuasive because the specification (e.g. ¶ [0017]-[0020], [0039]-[0045] shows multiple embodiments reflecting the restricted claims.
Thus, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/4/25. These drawings are acceptable.
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 of this title, 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 1-4 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matono et al. (US 2025/0168515).
Regarding claim 1, Matono discloses a camera system (see C21-C26 in fig. 2) comprising: a first camera group (see C21, C23 and C25 in fig. 2) that includes a plurality of cameras disposed to be capable of imaging an outside of an entire periphery continuous in at least one direction around a host vehicle (see 1 in fig. 2); a second camera group (see C22, C24 and C26 in fig. 2) that includes the plurality of cameras disposed to be capable of imaging the outside of the entire periphery continuous in at least one direction around the host vehicle, and disposed so as to have a stereo region that is an imaging visual field that overlaps at least an imaging visual field of the first camera group (see V1-V4 in fig. 2); and a stereo matching processing unit that performs stereo matching processing to obtain parallax information using images captured by the first camera group and images captured by the second camera group (see V1-V4 in fig. 2; e.g. see ¶ [0040], wherein it is obvious that the well-known stereo matching technique involves obtaining parallax information).
Regarding claim 2, Matono further discloses wherein the first camera group and the second camera group include at least three or more cameras disposed to have a plurality of stereo regions (see C21-C26 in fig. 2), and end portions of the plurality of stereo regions are in contact with or intersect with each other (see V1-V4 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Matono further discloses wherein the first camera group and the second camera group include at least three or more cameras disposed so as to have a plurality of stereo regions (see C21-C26 and V1-V4 in fig. 2), and are disposed to be capable of imaging the outside of the entire periphery continuous in at least one direction around the host vehicle in the stereo region (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Matono further discloses wherein the first camera group includes three monocular cameras that respectively image a front, a left rear, and a right rear of the host vehicle (see C21, C23 and C25 in fig. 2), and the second camera group includes three monocular cameras that respectively image a left front, a right front, and a rear of the host vehicle (see C22, C24 and C26 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Matono further discloses wherein the first camera group and the second camera group include a plurality of monocular cameras (see C21-C26 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Matono further discloses wherein the second camera group includes a plurality of cameras having optical axis directions different from optical axis directions of the plurality of cameras of the first camera group (see C21-C26 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Matono further discloses wherein the first camera group and the second camera group include a plurality of cameras having different optical axis directions (see C21-C26 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, although Matono discloses comprising multiple groups provided on front, rear, right, and left of the host vehicle (see fig. 2), it is noted that Matono does not disclose a third camera group. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add a third camera group, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 11, although it is not explicitly recited, it is conventional in the art for using fisheye camera for surround view. The Examiner takes official notice that fisheye camera is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made incorporate fisheye camera for the benefit of a different setup for surround viewing as designer choice.
Regarding claim 12, Matono, incorporating the fisheye camera further discloses wherein the third camera group is disposed so as to have a stereo region that is an imaging visual field overlapping with an imaging visual field of at least one of the first camera group and the second camera group (see fig. 2 with fisheye camera), and the stereo matching processing unit performs the stereo matching processing using at least one of the images captured by the first camera group or the images captured by the second camera group and images captured by the third camera group (e.g. see ¶ [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, although Matono discloses wherein among the cameras included in the first camera group and the second camera group, a camera that images at least a left side and a right side of the host vehicle is provided above at a location of the host vehicle (see C21-C26 in fig. 2), it is noted that Matono does not provide the particular wherein the location is a ceiling.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to exploit the different types of mounting location such as the ceiling for the benefit of an unobstructed view.
Regarding claim 14, Matono further discloses wherein the cameras included in the first camera group and the second camera group are attached to a peripheral edge portion of the host vehicle (see C21-C26 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Matono further discloses wherein the cameras included in the first camera group and the second camera group are disposed such that an overlapping stereo region in which a plurality of stereo regions overlap is formed (see C21-C26 in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Matono further discloses wherein the overlapping stereo region is formed in front of a vehicle or in rear of the vehicle (see C21-C26 in fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 17-19, 25-26 and 28-30 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 17 discloses a stereo matching priority determination unit that determines from which stereo region among the plurality of stereo regions forming the overlapping stereo region, information to be acquired is prioritized. The closest prior art Matono fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitation obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Ishii et al. (US 6,993,159), discloses driving support with cameras.
2. Uchida et al. (US 2025/0173885), discloses vehicle assistance with stereo cameras.
3. Kim et al. (US 2024/0233326), discloses vehicle assistance with stereo cameras.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights