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 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes based upon the claims now reciting the “as-is” limitation, where the stuck-state function is disabled, the examiner notes the newly cited Beck, US 20150350638 discloses a camera fault system which detect multiple faults with the camera (para 25), wherein such fault generation circuitry may be disabled (para 30-33, 36, 38) and produce a stream of image data normally (as-is) where as shown in Fig 2 (error camera functions are disabled) and where in Fig 3 (error camera functions are enabled).
The examiner notes being able to see the difference between a function being activated and disabled provides the user/vehicle the information as to whether the error function is working and allow the user to ensure the camera and display can be operated in various modes, based upon whether the functions are working and whether the user/system want to check the operation before normal use of the vehicle and operate such camera/display during normal use of the vehicle.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kang, US 20250008223, KAJIMOTO, US 20180336783, George et al., US 11,597,347 and Beck, US 20150350638
PNG
media_image1.png
450
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In considering claim 1,
The claimed controller circuitry is met by SVM controller 20, which includes a fault determination unit 210 and image processing unit 220 (Fig 2)
PNG
media_image2.png
548
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The fault determination unit/circuit (210) (para 9, 11, 31, 35, 41-44, 47, 59-60, 71-77, determines whether any of the cameras (plurality Fig 1) fail (step 520) and then unit 210 may notify the image processing unit 220 what cameras to use for processing.
It is noted KANG does not explicitly recite the conventional features of camera selection a) (weighting) based upon gear position (forward, reverse..) or b) stuck state; c)disable;
Regarding a) weighting… as disclosed by KAJIMOTO, US 20180336783 (para 4, 40, 65) which discloses the camera representative of the gear position (reverse, forward) is selected for display, in addition to synthesizing images for a n overhead display.
The motivation to modify KANG with KAJIMOTO provides the advantage of ensuring based upon gear selection/direction the appropriate camera/view is selected/display thus ensuring vehicle safety thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding b) stuck state….the examiner notes a camera image may be diagnostic from time to time to ensure the camera is valid and is not frozen (stuck state) (col 9, line 56-61) as disclosed by George et al., US 11,597,347.
Wherein as noted above with KANG, which informs the image processor not to process (the claimed disable) from cameras that have been identified as faulty, thus combined with George would provide the system the ability to only check cameras that were first identified as not faulty (enable) and disable (not check/verify) cameras there were not selected, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art, to only process image data from cameras that have been selected and operable to provide a display, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding the c)disable, the examiner notes Beck, US 20150350638 discloses a camera fault system which detect multiple faults with the camera (para 25), wherein such fault generation circuitry may be disabled (para 30-33, 36, 38) and produce a stream of image data normally (as-is) where as shown in Fig 2 (error camera functions are disabled) and where in Fig 3 (error camera functions are enabled).
Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above combination with Beck, which allows the system/user to either keep the error functions activated or disabled, which enables the system to either view the images as-is (without correction/error function, Fig 2)) or with (Fig 3)b which allows the system to bypass any functions if desired, the motivation being able to control the display to the intended purpose (view raw image without corrected), view images with correction, thus allowing the user/vehicle to view images as they desired, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Principles of Law:
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) and include:
a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
d) applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results:
e) “obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
g) some teaching, suggestion, motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teaching to arrive at the claimed invention.
As noted by the PTAB recent decision (12 July 2022):
“"The correct legal framework for obviousness does not involve divining the intention of an inventor of a prior art reference but, rather, involves determining 'what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”
Microsoft Word - IPR2021-00417 FD - Ready (law360news.com)
The examiner notes in the prior art combination above also in view of KSR (a, c, d, f and g) provides expected results as noted above, which allows the system to receive camera images and to perform error function detection on the images or not. The combination above allows the system/user to ensure a safe vehicle display by allowing the user to view images in either mode (activated or not), thus being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2,
As noted in claim 1; the controller of Kang instructs what cameras to use based on fault detection (error);
Kajimoto discloses what camera are used based upon gear position (direction); George disclose the features of determining whether a camera is frozen/stuck; and
Majid discloses informing the user/system what devices are connected, where non-connected devices are disabled, since they are not active.
In considering claim 3,
Refer to claim 2, where as noted by Kajimoto the camera selection is based upon gear position (direction) and the combination discloses disabling processing of not connected (failure) cameras and only processing cameras which are connected and do not have failures/faults, thus being obvious modifications to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure a proper display based upon traveling direction (gear position) and using cameras that are operable to ensure a safe display.
In considering claim 4,
Refer to claim 1.
Regarding the stuck-state as noted above KANG discloses a fault determination unit 210; and George discloses the frozen (stuck state detection) and Beck allows the display of images as is (raw/natural) or with correction.
In considering claim 5,
Refer to claim 1.
In considering claim 6,
Kang discloses the invention can be carried out via a computer-readable recording/storage medium (para 84, 85); George also disclose such (full text para 6, 32).
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see cited references on attached form PTO-892: US 12,407,794 (Fig 6)
US 20170358103 (para 74)
US 20200252552 (para 17)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2400 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights