DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant amendment received on March 9th 2026 has been fully considered and entered, but the arguments are not deemed to be persuasive.
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
2. The Applicant provided a detailed explanation of Whitehead and Hongo to argue that independent claim 1 defines among other things, the feature according to which “the first and second image data are displayed as a common screen motif on a display device”.
The Applicant pointed out that the limitation is not about displaying the first and second image data on a common display device. Rather, it is about composing a common screen motif from the first and second image data and displaying this common screen motif on the display device.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. In fact, the Applicant must understand that as long as the prior art provides a common screen, the limitations is considered met. The Applicant must understand that the location of the camera is rather a design choice since the cameras can be moved or placed anywhere as long as there are more than one camera displaying multiple image data on a common screen. Whitehead provides a dual camera system in Fig. 12 where several sections can be seen as required by the driver or vehicle operator. To the Examiner, “composing a common screen motif from the first and second image data and displaying this common screen motif on the display device” is present in Whitehead’s Fig. 12.
Whitehead clearly noted that “The display screen 140 may be mounted permanently or temporarily in the cab 22 of the vehicle 20, or may be unmounted, such as in a portable device such as a tablet computer or smart phone. The communications with between the components of the system, such between the camera housing and the display may be wired or wireless communications. In certain examples, the display screen 140 is mounted in the dashboard of the vehicle 20. The display screen 140 may be the display of a navigation system or other vehicle system such as for display of vehicle information or additional video signals. In the example, the user has selected the split screen display mode to show the rear facing video camera feed in the left half 142 of the screen and the forward facing camera in the right portion 144 of the screen.”
In other words, the argument about the “safety relevant region captured by the first camera” is disclosed in Whitehead. In fact, Whitehead clearly notes that “The images from the cameras are typically displayed to the driver on a monitor in the cab to aid coupling to a trailer. When not being used for the coupling operation the monitor may be used for displaying video and image data, such as a rear view aid displaying video of using a separate mounted camera arranged to give a correct rear view for driving.”
The Applicant provided many arguments to show that the combination of Whitehead and Hongo does not meet the claimed limitations, however, the arguments are not persuasive since the prior art provide spit screen with multiple cameras to be placed around the vehicle for safety. To the Examiner, the combination of Whitehead and Hongo provide the same solution that the Applicant is claiming. The location or placement of cameras around a vehicle to provide different image data from different angles on a single screen/monitor is met by the proposed combination as previously demonstrated in the last Office Action mailed on Decembe 12, 2025.
While the Applicant appears to repeat the same arguments to demonstrate that the combination of Whitehead and Hongo did not meet the claim language, the arguments are not deemed to be persuasive.
The rejection will be repeated below, and newly added claim 20 will be addressed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead et al. (US Patent no. 9357114) in view of Hongo (US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0044061).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Whitehead discloses a tractor vehicle with a camera system for the accurate coupling of a trailer vehicle (See Whitehead’s Abstract), having a first camera that is attached to the tractor vehicle and provides first image data (See Whitehead Fig. 13, camera housing 46, col. 1, lines 38-54 and col. 8, lines 48-62), and a second camera that provides second image data and is attached in an offset manner on one of the vehicle axes (x, y, z) of the tractor vehicle with respect to the first camera (See Whitehead col. 1, lines 38-54, col. 9, lines 60-67, and col. 10, lines 1-2), wherein the first and second image data are displayed as a common screen motif on a display device installed in the driver's cab (See Whitehead Fig. 12, common screen 140 and col. 7, lines 26-37), and the first and second camera are oriented such that a safety-relevant region (SD) behind the tractor vehicle is recorded by means of the first camera and a coupling-relevant region (SR), in which a coupling element, to be controlled, of the trailer vehicle is discernible, is recorded by means of the second camara (See Whitehead col. 9, lines 53-67, and col. 10, lines 1-2).
It is noted that Whitehead is silent about wherein the safety-relevant region (SD) is captured by the first camera and comprises a vertical plane (E) which stands on the road surface (F) spaced from the towing vehicle by a distance (XE) of 0.10 m to 1.00 m in the rearward extension of the vehicle's longitudinal axis (x) as specified in the claim.
However, Hongo proposed an analogous safety-relevant region wherein such region is captured by the camera while performing functions similar to the claimed functions (See Hongo Fig. 10, and paragraphs [0083] and [0100] with a safety-relevant region captured by the camera).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Whitehead’s camera system to incorporate Hongo’s teachings, which is considered analogous to the claimed “safety-relevant region (SD) captured by the first camera and comprises a vertical plane (E) which stands on the road surface (F) spaced from the towing vehicle by a distance (XE) of 0.10 m to 1.00 m in the rearward extension of the vehicle's longitudinal axis (x)”. The motivation for providing such a modification in Whitehead’s camera system is to provide an alternate design choice for the safely relevant region in tractor vehicle. Doing so would provide the required safety check during driving of the tractor (See Hongo [0100]).
As per claims 3-4, the combination of Whitehead and Hongo further teaches detecting the vertical plane by the camera, and wherein a space is detected which spanned the plane (See Whitehead col. 4, lines 28-40).
As per claim 5, the combination of Whitehead and Hongo further teaches wherein the screen motif is formed from the first and second image data originating from different positions in the direction of the vehicle’s longitudinal axis (See Whithead col. 6, lines 53-61).
As per claims 6-8, it is noted that while the combination of Whitehead and Hongo does not specify the same location where an image is being captured, Whitehead suggests placing the cameras in different locations as needed in order to provide multiple views and images (See Whitehead Fig. 4, col. 2, lines 60-67, col. 3, lines 1-3, and lines 31-46).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Whitehead to provide an alternate display/viewing experience. Doing so will provide an alternate design choice to the skilled artisan.
As per claim 9, the combination of Whitehead and Hongo further teaches wherein the tractor vehicle is a semitrailer tractor and the coupling means is a fifth wheel coupling with a coupling plate (See Whitehead col. 4, lines 38-54).
As per claim 11, the combination of Whitehead and Hongo further teaches wherein a camera is attached to a rear cross of the semitrailer tractor (See Whitehead col. 2, lines 60-67, col. 3, lines 1-3).
As per claim 13, the combination of Whitehead and Hongo further teaches wherein the tractor vehicle is a truck and the coupling means is a bar coupling (See Whitehead col. 2, lines 46-59).
6. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehead et al. (US Patent no. 9357114) in view of Hongo (US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0044061) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view Soderlind et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2013/0107045).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Whitehead and Hongo teaches most of the limitations of this claim.
It is noted that the combination and Whitehead and Hongo is silent about wherein the first camera is attached to and underrun protection bumper.
However, Soderlind teaches wherein the camera is attached to an overrun protection bumper (See Soderlind [0003]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Whitehead and Hongo to incorporate Soderlind’s teachings wherein the first camera is attached to and underrun protection bumper. The motivation for performing such a modification in the above combination is to provide a camera that will show the rear-most portion of the truck for the purpose of viewing a trailer hitch connection while towing the trailer.
7. Claims 10, 12, 14, 16-19 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 claims are allowable over the prior art of record since the references taken individually or in combination fail to teach or suggest, in addition to the limitations of the independent claims, “wherein a space is detected which is spanned by the plane (E) along the expected trajectory, wherein the screen motif is formed from the first and second image data originating from different positions in the direction of the vehicle's longitudinal axis (x), and wherein the first image data always capture a section of a road surface (F) located directly behind the tractor vehicle”.
The prior art further fails to teach or suggest “wherein the component of the bar coupling is a drive-jaw, a screw on flange, a housing of the locking mechanism, and/or a coupling body with a drawbar”.
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights