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 .
Claim Status
2. Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Claims 16-17 are newly added.
Response to Remarks
3. Applicant’s arguments are directed to the amended claim matter. A new search and consideration has been carried out.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application does not currently name joint inventors.
4. Claims 1-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Peter Corcoran et al., (hereinafter Corcoran) (US 2014/0055616) and Mansi Rankawat et al., (hereinafter Rankawat) (US 2019/0286153) in view of Jeon et al., (hereinafter Jeon) (KR20090044163A).
Re Claim 1. (currently amended) Corcoran discloses, a motor vehicle (Abstract) comprising:
a body having a front and rear end (a vehicle body in Figs.1a, 1B, 2a, 2d, 3a-b, and 4-6, Par.[0021, 0003]);
a rear camera connected to the rear end of the body (rear view camera at the back of vehicle per Fig.5 Par.[0036], e.g., the camera 12 is mounted outside the vehicle at the rear, Par.[0020]), and
operable to generate an image of a-objects to the rear of the vehicle in a vehicle reversing path (generating images with a field of view (FOV) at the rear left hand (LH) FOV and right hand (RH) FOV, per Fig.2a, Par.[0025] Fig.2d or 3b, and at least Par.[0015-0016, 0026, 0031] in the vehicle reversing direction Par.[0012, 0017, 0019, 0025 etc.]) and
lateral to the rear of the vehicle including peripheral portions outside of the vehicle reversing path (including imaging to the Left-hand and Right-hand FOVs, Par.[0025] Fig.2A);
the rear camera having a selected first widest angle of view including the peripheral portions (a first view is generated when the vehicle is reversing and displaying a wide angle field of view, (WFoV) per Figs.2a-2d, Par.[0012, 0015, 0020, 0025-0026]);
a controller connected the rear camera a camera microcontroller is obviated at Par.[0007]);
a display connected to the controller (a display connected to microcontroller, Par.[0007]); and
the controller operable to process the image to determine the surroundings of the vehicle (the camera controller Par.[0007] monitoring the surrounding environment 360o around the vehicle, Par.[0006, 0008-0009]);
to control the display to selectably display a second angle of view narrower than the first widest angle of view in a second selected circumstance in the absence of cross traffic hazards (displaying three subsidiaries of the FOV on a widescreen Par.[0027] being selective narrower than the WFoV, Par.[0013, 0018, 0026] or per Figs.2b-2c, Par.[0028-0029] according to the surrounding during transition between reverse/forward, Par.[0032]} Fig.3A-3B).
In an analogous art, Rankawat teaches about,
a body having a front and rear end (a vehicle 700, body, Fig.7B);
a rear camera connected to the rear end of the body, and operable to generate an image of a objects to the rear of and lateral to the rear of the vehicle (a rearview camera imaging objects at the rear and lateral by wide view angle, 768, Fig.7B, Par.[0040]);
the rear camera having a selected first angle of view (the rearview camera, a first field of view and a second field of view in Fig.7);
a controller connected the rear camera (a short range and long range cameras controller 736, Par.[0165]);
a display connected to the controller (a display 734, connected to controller 736, Par.[0166], Fig.7C); and
the controller operable based on the surroundings of the vehicle to make a display angle selection to control the display to selectably display the first widest angle of view including the peripheral portions in a first selected circumstance associated with cross traffic hazards (where the controller perceive objected coming into view e.g., cross-traffic hazards, Par.[0173, 0243, 0246, or 0248]), and
However, the analogous art to Jeon, expressly teach the claimed limitations where,
the controller operable to process the image to determine the surroundings of the vehicle (determining the surroundings around the vehicle, ;
the controller operable based on the surroundings of the vehicle to make a display angle selection to control the display to selectably display the first widest angle of view including the peripheral portions in a first selected circumstance associated with cross traffic hazards, and to control the display to selectably display a second angle of view narrower than the first widest angle of view in a second selected circumstance in the absence of cross traffic hazards (selectively adjusting the viewing angle of the ultra wide-angle camera, Abstract and detecting the accident prone of the rear view at Description and Figs.2 and 6 ).
In view of the rear view camera taught by the art to Corcoran, as mapped above, the ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of invention to seek other methods of improving the camera data processing related to specific circumstances occurring during vehicle driving, as expressed in Rankawat, for improving performance and responsiveness, Par.[0185, 0215], along with Jeon defining the hazard conditions while reverse driving and preventing accidents by selectively changing the narrow FOV of the cameras to wide-angle by the use of a toggle switch function, hence finding the combination predictable.
Re Claim 2. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1 wherein
Corcoran teaches about, the display angle selection is based on the presence of adjacent parked vehicles (the display selection is based on detecting objects of interest on the relevant side of the vehicle and configured to rotate the rear FoV to include the object within the center FoV, Par.[0030] and adapted dynamically based on the vehicle motion, Par.[0031]).
Re Claim 3. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1 wherein
Corcoran teaches about, the display angle selection is based on detecting a traffic configuration to the rear that has the possibility of cross traffic (the rearview FOV and respectively the display is adapted dynamically based on the vehicle motion, Par.[0031]).
Re Claim 4. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1 wherein
Corcoran teaches about, the display angle selection is based on detecting a row of parking locations opposite the motor vehicle to the rear (viewing the parking when reversing and adjusts the FoV as the vehicle is in rearward motion, , Par.[0019]).
Re Claim 5. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1 wherein
Corcoran teaches about, the display angle selection is based on map data (having a more informative thus easily viewable rearview image provided to display based on a created synthesized “bird’s-eye-view” of the area surrounding the vehicle i.e., as a map, Par.[0006]).
Re Claim 6. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1 wherein
Corcoran teaches about, the display angle selection is based on data gathered by the motor vehicle during prior operation to the current location (the processor divides the display area in a number of grids corresponding to the stream provided by camera 12, data stored in memory, i.e., based on prior gathered data, Par.[0034]).
Rankawat teaches this limitation where (a map perceived discerns behaviors applicable to a particular locale being determined from data representing prior drives or trips, Par.[0076]).
Re Claim 7. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1 wherein
Corcoran teaches about, the display angle selection is based on a vehicle path behind and transverse to the motor vehicle (cameras allow for analysis of objects behind blocking the centre FoV of a single camera, Par.[0035] Fig.4, or which may appear across Par.[0028]).
Rankawat teaches this limitation where (the controller constrains the vehicle to wait or slow for crossing traffic or potential obstacles, Par.[0075, 0173]).
Re Claim 8. (currently amended) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1
Corcoran teaches about, the first angle of view is at least 160 degrees (The FoV is 180o).
Re Claim 9. (currently amended) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1
Corcoran teaches about, the first angle of view is at least 180 degrees.
Re Claim 10. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1 wherein
Corcoran teaches about, the second angle of view is at most 120 degrees (a second angle may be 120o Par.[0019]).
Re Claim 11. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1
Corcoran teaches about, the second angle of view is at most 100 degrees (a second angle may be 90o Par.[0019]).
Re Claim 12. (currently amended) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1
Corcoran teaches about, a ratio of the second angle of view to the first angle of view is at most 0.75 (a ratio between the narrow angle 120o the wide angle 180o may be 120/180=0.66 < 0.75).
Re Claim 13. (currently amended) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1
Corcoran teaches about, a ratio of the second angle of view to the first angle of view is at most 0.67 (the ratio between another narrow angle 90o and the wide angle 180o, is determined as, 90/180=0.5 < 0.67).
Re Claim 14. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1
Corcoran teaches about, the controller is operable to make a display angle selection to control the display to selectably display a third angle of view narrower than the second angle of view in a third selected circumstance (the controller, displays three regions where the first narrow angle image on LH FoV, and a third narrow angle image RH FoV, are displayed, in Fig.2c Par.[0029], or per Fig.2b Par.[0028, 0031]).
Re Claim 15. (original) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 14
Corcoran teaches about, the controller is operable make a display angle selection to control the display to selectably display a third angle of view when the vehicle is driving forward (the rearward view system is contiguous with the forward field of view as obviated at Par.[0004], or by narrowing the rearward FoVs, when vehicle transitions into forward motion, Par.[0013, 0019, 0032] and continues to monitor the rear of the vehicle when transitioning in forward motion, Par.[0033]).
Re Claim 16. (new) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1
Corcoran teaches about, wherein controlling the display to selectably display a second angle of view includes cropping the image (the ability to zoom in , Par.[0020, 0040-0041] and adjusting the size of each grid, in response to movement of the vehicle, Par.[0034]).
Re Claim 17. (new) Corcoran, Rankawat and Jeon disclose, the motor vehicle of claim 1
Corcoran teaches about, wherein controlling the display to selectably display a second angle of view includes magnifying the image (selecting the WFoV angle as wide/narrow, Par.[0012, 0015, 0019, 0020, 0025 -0026, 0032 etc.] and the ability to zoom in i.e., magnify the image, Par.[0020, 0040-0041]).
Conclusion
5. 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 extension fee 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 DAVE J CZEKAJ. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6:00 Monday-Thursday and every other Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
