DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 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.
35 USC § 112, Means-Plus-Function
The following limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use the generic placeholder “unit” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. The generic placeholders are also not preceded by a structural modifier.
These limitations are therefore interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Where support exists, the corresponding structure appears to be described at the corresponding paragraphs. Limitations without sufficient support are indefinite and result in the 112(f) rejections below.
Claim 1: the first imaging unit and the second imaging unit (not sufficiently supported); the display unit (supported at p. 11, line 21).
Claim 14: display unit (p. 11, line 21).
Claim 15: first and second imaging unit (not supported).
Claim 16: display unit (p. 11, line 21).
Claim 17: unit that captures (not sufficiently supported); unit that displays (p. 11, line 21).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Those claims contain limitations for which it is unclear whether the recited structure, material, or acts are sufficient for performing the claimed function.
If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claim recites “the first imaging unit” and “the second imaging unit” without antecedent basis.
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)(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 1-4, 7-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., US 2023/0406101.
Claim 1. Kim teaches a display control system comprising:
a first imaging unit that images a rear side of a mobile body [rear camera 20, Figs. 1, 2, paras. 62-66];
a second imaging unit that images an inside of the mobile body [rear-seat camera 30, Figs. 1, 2, paras. 67-73];
a display unit that is provided at a position visually recognizable to a driver of the mobile body [display part 60, Figs. 1, 2, 4 et seq., paras. 101-108, 119-121]; and
a display control unit that displays at least one of a first image generated by using the first imaging unit or a second image generated by using the second imaging unit on the display unit, wherein the display control unit changes a display aspect of the at least one of the first image or the second image according to a predetermined state, and displays both the first image and the second image on the display unit in a case where the predetermined state satisfies a first condition [both passenger image and rear-view image may be displayed, and passenger images may be enlarged when passenger speaks, Figs. 3, 6, 7, paras. 61, 84-88, 97-100, 171-175, 179, 180, 188-193, 198].
2. Kim teaches the display control system according to claim 1, wherein the case where the predetermined state satisfies the first condition includes at least one of a case where an engine of the mobile body is started, a case where a passenger in the mobile body is uttering [image may be enlarged when passenger speaks, Figs. 3, 6, paras. 61, 84-88, 97-100, 171-175, 179, 180, 188-193, 198], or a case where the passenger is not uttering for a predetermined time.
3. Kim teaches the display control system according to claim 1, The display control system according to wherein the predetermined state includes at least one of a running state of the mobile body, a state of the rear side of the mobile body, a state of a passenger in the mobile body [e.g. whether passenger is speaking, Figs. 3, 6, paras. 61, 84-88, 97-100, 171-175, 179, 180, 188-193, 198], or a state of the driver.
4. Kim teaches the display control system according to claim 3, wherein the running state of the mobile body includes at least one of a state of a speed of the mobile body [speed, para. 116] or a state of a road on which the mobile body is running.
7. Kim teaches the display control system according to claim 3 wherein the state of the passenger in the mobile body includes a state in which the passenger is uttering, and in a case where the passenger is uttering, the display control unit changes a display aspect of the second image such that the passenger included in the second image is displayed in an emphasized manner [image may be enlarged when passenger speaks, Figs. 3, 6, paras. 61, 84-88, 97-100, 171-175, 179, 180, 188-193, 198].
8. Kim teaches the display control system according to claim 3 wherein the state of the driver includes a state in which alertness of the driver is decreased, and in a case where an attention level of the driver is decreased, the display control unit changes a display aspect of the second image such that the second image is not displayed [e.g. in Fig. 8, as driver’s attention is decreased due to the display of the passengers, the system changes the display to remove the passenger image and warn driver, Fig. 8, paras. 202-206].
9. Kim teaches the display control system according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit displays a passenger included in the second image on the display unit in an icon aspect [an icon is simply a displayed graphic, including a cropped facial/torso image of passengers, Figs. 5-8].
10. Kim teaches a display according to claim 9 wherein the display control unit changes the icon aspect according to a state of the passenger [image may be enlarged when passenger speaks, Figs. 3, 6, paras. 61, 84-88, 97-100, 171-175, 179, 180, 188-193, 198].
14. Kim teaches an electronic mirror comprising:
a display unit that is provided at a position visually recognizable to a driver of a mobile body [display part 60, Figs. 1, 2, 4 et seq., paras. 101-108, 119-121]; and
a display control unit that displays at least one of a first image generated by using the first imaging unit or a second image generated by using the second imaging unit on the display unit, wherein the display control unit changes a display aspect of the at least one of the first image or the second image according to a predetermined state, and displays both the first image and the second image on the display unit in a case where the predetermined state satisfies a first condition [both passenger image and rear-view image may be displayed, and passenger images may be enlarged when passenger speaks, Figs. 3, 6, 7, paras. 61, 84-88, 97-100, 171-175, 179, 180, 188-193, 198].
15. Kim teaches the electronic mirror wherein the first imaging unit images a rear side of the mobile body [rear camera 20, Figs. 1, 2, paras. 62-66], and the second imaging unit images an inside of the mobile body [rear-seat camera 30, Figs. 1, 2, paras. 67-73].
16 and 17. Kim teaches a method and medium with instructions for controlling a display control system that causes one or more computers realizing the display control system to execute a process comprising:
capturing a rear side of a mobile body [rear camera 20, Figs. 1, 2, paras. 62-66];
capturing an inside of the mobile body [rear-seat camera 30, Figs. 1, 2, paras. 67-73];
displaying at least one of a first image generated by capturing the rear side of the mobile body or a second image generated by capturing the inside of the mobile body on a display unit at a position visually recognizable to a driver of the mobile body [display part 60, Figs. 1, 2, 4 et seq., paras. 101-108, 119-121]; and
changing a display aspect of the at least one of the first image or the second image in accordance with a predetermined state and displaying both the first image and the second image on the display unit in a case where the predetermined state satisfies a first condition [both passenger image and rear-view image may be displayed, and passenger images may be enlarged when passenger speaks, Figs. 3, 6, 7, paras. 61, 84-88, 97-100, 171-175, 179, 180, 188-193, 198].
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 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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as cited above in view of Aoki, US 2023/0135043.
5 (from 3). Kim teaches determining when a collision is imminent, and in that case the display control unit changes a display aspect of the second image such that a size of the second image displayed on the display unit is reduced or the second image is not displayed [Fig. 8, paras. 202-206].
Kim is silent on determining a distance to a vehicle in the rear as a manner of determining the possibility of collision. Aoki teaches a vehicle optical system wherein the state of the rear side of the mobile body includes a state in which an inter-vehicle distance between the mobile body and a vehicle of the rear side of the mobile body is equal to or less than a predetermined distance, and in a case where the inter-vehicle distance is equal to or less than the predetermined distance, changing a display mode [Figs. 2, 7, 8, para. 56].
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Aoki, in order to prevent collisions when a vehicle is following too closely or is in the path of the reversing vehicle.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as cited above in view of Miyake et al., US 2020/0283010.
12 (from 1). Kim is silent on a sound effect output. Miyake teaches a display control system wherein the display control unit outputs a sound effect according to the predetermined state [sound output, speakers 8/9, paras. 28, 32, 35, 61, 70]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using a speaker to indicate collision warnings so the driver is not distracted by reading visual warnings on the display.
13. Miyake teaches the display control system according to claim 1 wherein the display unit includes a speaker [sound output, paras. 28, 32, 35, 61, 70] and a microphone [microphone 33, paras. 32, 34, 39, 40].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights