DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed 06/02/2025. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-8 are drawn to a method of determining a blind spot of a display module caused by a steering wheel, classified in B60K 2360/149.
Claims 9-15 are drawn to a method of providing a virtual effect of a vehicle, classified in B60K 35/22.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other for the following reason:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II, which is drawn to a method of providing a virtual effect of a vehicle, has separate utility such as providing a fun experience for a driver by modifying an effect of a terrain mode display based on a determined effective area and based on a manipulation direction of a steering wheel. This is separately usable from subcombination I, which is a method of determining a blind spot of a display module caused by a steering wheel, and which has separate utility such as determining a shape in a display area that is representative of a blind spot of a driver. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Group I would require a search in at least CPC B60K 2360/149, along with a unique text search addressing the features related to the claimed synchronization operation, driving of the blocked camera, and blind spot calculation. Group II would not be searched as above and would instead require a search in at least CPC B60K 35/22, along with a unique text search addressing the features related to the claimed terrain mode, screen activation determining operation, effective area determining operation, and effect exhibiting operation.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner spoke with Attorney of Record Allison Williams (reg. no. 59,840) via telephone call on 06/01/2026 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement, and applicant’s representative agreed to elect Invention I (i.e., claims 1-8) without traverse.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference characters 211L, S212R, and S212 in FIG. 4B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 8 are each rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2020/0105230 A1) in view of Krishnan (US 2019/0156150 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Jung discloses the following limitations:
“A method of determining a blind spot of a display module caused by a steering wheel, the method comprising: allowing, by a control unit, a synchronization operation of one or more cameras installed on a display module to identify a driver's eyes.” (Jung ¶ 75: “The controller 150, which will be described later, may determine a position of eyes of the driver based on the vehicle interior image captured by the at least one image sensor 140.” Additionally, Jung ¶ 10: “The at least one image sensor may include at least one of a camera configured to capture the vehicle interior image in a visible light range and an infrared (IR) camera configured to capture the vehicle interior image in an IR ray range.”)
“and a blind spot calculating operation of reflecting, by the control unit, a shape of the steering wheel, which is pre-stored in the control unit, in the display module and calculating an area of the display module, which is covered by the steering wheel and is unable to be identified by the driver.” (Jung ¶ 85 and FIG. 3 reproduced below: “The controller 150 may determine the covered area 300 on the display 110, covered by the steering wheel 120, by obtaining the eye position information.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
419
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jung does not specifically disclose “a blind spot determining operation of driving, by the control unit, a camera among the one or more cameras, of which a view is blocked by a steering wheel and which is unable to identify the driver's eyes, and identifying the driver’s eyes.” However, Krishnan does teach this limitation. (Krishnan ¶ 122: “In this imaging arrangement, the placement position of the camera (on the dashpad) and its tip-tilt setting, the placement position of the patch on the windscreen, and the height of the driver are all interrelated. The goal here is to place the path as low as possible on the windscreen, without its line of sight being obscured by the steering wheel, while at the same time centering the driver's eyes on the camera.” Further, Krishnan ¶ 94: “Most commercial eye trackers have options to adjust camera and illuminator positioning (linear and angular). Cameras can be automatic or manual focusing or require no focus adjustments. Automatic adjustment of linear and angular camera positions can additionally be carried out using feedback from the eye tracker's image analysis system.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Jung by adjusting the cameras to allow them to identify the driver’s eyes as taught by Krishnan with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Krishnan ¶ 122 teaches that it is ideal for the eye tracking camera to achieve a line of sight to the driver’s eyes that is not obscured by the steering wheel; further, Krishnan ¶ 94 teaches that such adjustment of the camera is conventional in the technological field of eye tracking. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that automatically adjusting the cameras to allow them to have a line of sight to the driver’s eyes would improve convenience by allowing image data to be collected without any need for the driver to manually adjust the camera.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Jung and Krishnan teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jung also teaches “wherein the synchronization operation includes: a synchronization start operation in which the one or more cameras each start to identify the driver's eyes.” (Jung ¶ 75: “at least one image sensor 140 according to an embodiment may capture the vehicle interior image including the facial image of the driver. The controller 150, which will be described later, may determine a position of eyes of the driver based on the vehicle interior image captured by the at least one image sensor 140.”)
Jung does not explicitly disclose “a covered camera determining operation of determining whether a covered camera among the one or more cameras, which is covered by the steering wheel and is unable to identify the driver's eyes, is present.” However, Krishnan does teach this limitation. (Krishnan ¶ 94: “Most commercial eye trackers have options to adjust camera and illuminator positioning (linear and angular). Cameras can be automatic or manual focusing or require no focus adjustments. Automatic adjustment of linear and angular camera positions can additionally be carried out using feedback from the eye tracker's image analysis system.” Allowing the cameras to automatically adjust positions based on feedback from the eye tracker’s analysis system implies a step of identifying that a camera is covered by an obstacle. Additionally, Krishnan ¶ 122 teaches that the steering wheel could be an obstacle that obscures the line of sight of the cameras.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Jung by determining whether a camera is covered by the steering wheel and unable to identify the driver’s eyes as is taught by Krishnan with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because since ¶ 122 teaches that it is ideal for the eye tracking camera to achieve a line of sight to the driver’s eyes that is not obscured by the steering wheel; additionally, Krishnan ¶ 94 teaches that adjustment of the camera position is conventional in the technological field of eye tracking. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that automatically adjusting the cameras to allow them to have a line of sight to the driver’s eyes that is unblocked by the steering wheel would improve convenience by allowing image data to be collected without any need for the driver to manually adjust the camera.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Jung and Krishnan teaches “The method of claim 2,” and Krishnan additionally teaches the method “further comprising a synchronization completion determining operation of determining whether the one or more cameras have started to identify the driver's eyes between the synchronization start operation and the covered camera determining operation.” (Krishnan ¶ 94: “Most commercial eye trackers have options to adjust camera and illuminator positioning (linear and angular). Cameras can be automatic or manual focusing or require no focus adjustments. Automatic adjustment of linear and angular camera positions can additionally be carried out using feedback from the eye tracker's image analysis system.” Allowing the cameras to automatically adjust positions based on feedback from the eye tracker’s analysis system implies a step of determining whether the cameras have identified the driver’s eyes.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Jung by determining whether a camera has identified the driver’s eyes as taught by Krishnan with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because since ¶ 122 teaches that it is ideal for the eye tracking camera to achieve a line of sight to the driver’s eyes that is not obscured by the steering wheel; additionally, Krishnan ¶ 94 teaches that adjustment of the camera position is conventional in the technological field of eye tracking. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that automatically adjusting the cameras to allow them to have a line of sight to the driver’s eyes that is unblocked by the steering wheel would improve convenience by allowing image data to be collected without any need for the driver to manually adjust the camera.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Jung and Krishnan teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jung also teaches “wherein the camera is a depth camera configured to recognize an object in a three-dimensional space.” (Jung ¶¶ 10-11: “The at least one image sensor may include at least one of a camera configured to capture the vehicle interior image in a visible light range and an infrared (IR) camera configured to capture the vehicle interior image in an IR ray range. The controller may obtain the eye position information by determining a distance and an angle between the steering wheel and the eyes of the driver based on the vehicle interior image captured by the at least one image sensor and determining the position of the eyes of the driver based on the distance and the angle between the steering wheel and the eyes of the driver.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2022/0114362 A1) ¶¶ 10 and 13 disclose a system and method in which a “controller may measure a distance between the iris sensor and the driver,” wherein “The controller, in response to the iris sensor being covered by the steering wheel, may control a steering wheel adjustment apparatus so that the location of the steering wheel is adjusted.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights