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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the Office Action mailed 05/14/2026, Claims 1-8 and 10-15 remain pending. Claim 1 has been amended and no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 5-6, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §112(b) rejection of Claims 1-8 and 10-15 have been withdrawn. Claim 1 has been amended, therefore, Claim 6 has overcome the §112(d) rejection. The §112(d) rejection of Claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the previous Office Action, Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, and 14 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed et al, US 10,518,702 B2 (Rasheed), in view of Breese, WO 2021/050005 A1 (Breese);
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, in view of Breese, and further in view of Grann, US 2022/0309802 A1 (Grann);
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, in view of Breese, and further in view of Grann and Lang et al, US 2002/0011927 A1 (Lang).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, in view of Breese, and further in view of Lang;
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, in view of Breese, and further in view of Hoyda et al, US 20210213881 A1, (Hoyda).
In the Remarks, Applicant argues (Remarks, pages 7-9):
Critically, Rasheed distinguishes its single stitched image from precisely the side-by- side, unstitched presentation the Examiner now seeks to import from Breese. Rasheed states that "the single wide angle image avoids duplication of images by removing overlapping views. In other words, the multiple images are not simply placed side by side, but rather overlaid with one another to create a single wide angle view of the sides and rear." Rasheed, col. 5, II. 6-11. Likewise, the stitching module "stitches all of the images together to create a single wide angle image," wherein "[t]he images that are stitched together exclude overlapping areas to present a single wide angle image as opposed to simply placing the images side by side." Rasheed, col. 6, II. 26-31. Rasheed thus affirmatively teaches away from the discrete, unstitched, side-by-side arrangement that is the entire point of the proposed modification.
The principle of operation of Rasheed is the stitching, warping, and overlaying of multiple camera feeds into a single seamless panoramic image. Removing the stitch does not adjust Rasheed-it removes the mechanism by which Rasheed achieves its result. "If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious." MPEP $2143.01(VI). Presenting Rasheed's feeds as discrete, unstitched images would eliminate the warping, overlap- removal, and single-image composition that constitute Rasheed's operation, and would therefore change Rasheed's principle of operation. The combination accordingly fails.
The Examiner's argument also renders Rasheed unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Rasheed's stated intended purpose is to provide the operator with "a single comprehensive image" giving "a wide angle view of the sides and rear," which Rasheed states is "beneficial in eliminating the problems of blind spots." Rasheed, col. 2, II. 46-49. Modifying Rasheed to present discrete, unstitched images defeats that purpose-indeed, Rasheed expressly warns against "simply placing the images side by side." "[I]f a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification." MPEP $2143.01(V). Because the modification would frustrate the seamless single-image purpose Rasheed was built to achieve, there is no motivation to make it.
The Examiner's stated motivation-Breese's "lower cost and less computation intensive method"-is a benefit of Breese's raw-data scheme, not a benefit conferred on Rasheed. Rasheed deliberately incurs the computational cost of warping and stitching in order to obtain the seamless composite image that is its object. A rationale that a person of ordinary skill would abandon that processing to save computation is not a reason to improve Rasheed; it is a reason to discard what Rasheed set out to build. The proffered "benefit" is available only if one no longer wants the single stitched image Rasheed provides, which confirms that the modification is prompted by the claims themselves rather than by any teaching in the references. "[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). No such rational underpinning supports degrading Rasheed's core function to obtain a benefit that exists only in the absence of that function.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it characterizes the proposed combination as modifying Rasheed’s stitching operation to instead produce discrete, unstitched images. This does not accurately reflect the basis of the rejection. Rasheed was relied upon for this intended purpose: “to optimize the viewing areas, cameras are placed around the exterior of the tractor trailer. This camera arrangement provides the operator with multiple views” (Rasheed col. 2, lines 36-39). Thus, Rasheed teaches the plurality of camera views and the acquisition of the corresponding image data, while Breese was relied upon for teaching the claimed configuration and presentation of those views.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In particular, Rasheed itself distinguishes the acquisition of the individual camera images from the subsequent processing and stitching of those images. Rasheed’s image processing module first receives images from the plurality of cameras, and Rasheed’s Fig. 5 illustrates receiving the camera images at step 508 before the images are subsequently stitched at step 516. Thus, the relied-upon image data exists prior to Rasheed’s stitching operation. The proposed combination does not require altering Rasheed’s stitching module, removing Rasheed’s ability to generate its stitched panoramic image, or otherwise changing Rasheed’s principle of operation. Rather, the combination applies Breese’s teachings to the individual camera views obtained by Rasheed before such stitching occurs, such that the views are configured and presented in the manner taught by Breese.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the proposed combination would render Rasheed unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change Rasheed’s principle of operation is not persuasive. The rejection merely relies upon Rasheed for the underlying camera views/image data and Breese for the claimed manner in which those views are configured and displayed. Nothing in Rasheed requires that the individual camera images cease to exist merely because Rasheed additionally teaches subsequently processing those images into a stitched image.
Applicant’s argument regarding the stated motivation is also not persuasive. The proposed combination does not require “degrading Rasheed’s core function” (as applicant states) to obtain Breese’s benefits. Rather, Rasheed is relied upon for its function of obtaining the distinct, individual camera views, and Breese is relied upon for teaching how those views may be configured and presented. Thus, Breese’s teachings may be applied to Rasheed’s individual camera views to provide the claimed configuration and presentation of those views with the lower cost and reduced computational requirements taught by Breese.
Therefore, the proposed combination does not require discarding Rasheed’s purpose or modifying its principle of operation, and Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed et al, US 10,518,702 B2 (Rasheed), in view of Breese, WO 2021/050005 A1 (Breese).
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Rasheed teaches a method of providing views in a camera monitor system (CMS) for a vehicle including a tractor and a trailer (Rasheed Fig. 1) comprising:
a) receiving first and second captured images from first and second cameras that respectively provide first and second fields of view alongside a left side and a right side of the vehicle, each of the first and second fields of view are other than a legally prescribed narrow-angle view that includes the trailer or a legally prescribed wide-angle view that include the trailer (Rasheed Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 57-60– A fourth camera 120 (camera 4) captures a second left side view 144 of the trailer 104. A fifth camera 124 (camera 5) captures a second right side view 148 of the trailer 104.);
b) receiving a third captured image from a centrally located vehicle camera to provide a third field of view in a central blind spot of the vehicle (Rasheed Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 56-57, 60-61– A third camera 116 (camera 3) captures a rear view 140 of the tractor. A sixth camera 128 (camera 6) captures a rear view 152 of the trailer 104.);
However, Rasheed does not explicitly disclose and c) simultaneously depicting the first, second and third captured images as discrete, unstitched images on at least one a common display.
Breese teaches simultaneously depicting the first, second and third captured images as discrete, unstitched images on at least one a common display (Breese Fig. 5B).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed to simultaneously depict discrete, unstitched images on a common display as taught by Breese. One would be motivated by a lower cost and less computation intensive method (see Breese page 6, lines 39-41– This viewing mode according to such example embodiments is thus robust in not having any stitching artefacts, is fast to record and display and is low cost in not requiring intensive computation facilities).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Rasheed, in combination, further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the first and second fields of view respectively correspond to operator and passenger side views from rear-facing trailer mounted cameras (Rasheed Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 57-60– A fourth camera 120 (camera 4) captures a second left side view 144 of the trailer 104. A fifth camera 124 (camera 5) captures a second right side view 148 of the trailer 104).
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Rasheed, in combination, further discloses the method of Claim 2, wherein the third field of view corresponds to a rear-facing view from a rear of the trailer (Rasheed Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 60-61– A sixth camera 128 (camera 6) captures a rear view 152 of the trailer 104).
Regarding Claim 10 (Previously Presented), Rasheed teaches the method of Claim 1, as outlined above. However, Rasheed does not explicitly disclose wherein the common display is a central display that is centrally located in a cabin of the tractor.
Breese teaches wherein the common display is a central display that is centrally located in a cabin of the tractor. (Breese Fig. 2; page 10, lines 36-38– The wide horizontal extent and limited vertical extent of rear view mirrors can be ideal for displaying the composite wide angle view from the three cameras).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed by adding a centrally located common display in a cabin of a tractor as taught by Breese. One would be motivated by the increased blindspot visibility (see Rasheed col. 1, lines 17-18– Operators of vehicles , for example tractor trailers, have blind spots that rear and side view mirrors may not capture; see also Rasheed col. 3, lines 30-33– Particularly, with a wide angle view of the sides and rear of the tractor 100 and trailer 104, the operator will have fewer blind spots, as compared with a tractor 100 and trailer 104 not equipped with cameras 108, 112, 120, 124, and 128).
Regarding Claim 11 (Previously Presented), Rasheed and Breese teach the method of Claim 1, as outlined above. However, Rasheed does not explicitly disclose wherein the third captured image is depicted between the first and second captured images.
Breese teaches wherein the third captured image is depicted between the first and second captured images (Breese Fig. 8A).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed by depicting a third capture image between the first and second captured images as taught by Breese. One would be motivated by the increased blindspot visibility. Please see Claim 10 above for the applicable motivation reference.
Regarding Claim 14 (Previously Presented), Rasheed, in combination, further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the first and second fields of view respectively correspond to operator and passenger side views from rear-facing tractor mounted cameras capturing aftward along tractor (Rasheed col. 3, lines 53-56– A first camera 108 (camera 1) captures a left side view 132 of the tractor 100. A second camera 112 (camera 2) captures a right side view 136 of the tractor 100).
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, in view of Breese, and further in view of Grann, US 2022/0309802 A1 (Grann).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Rasheed and Breese teach the method of Claim 2, as outlined above. However, Rasheed and Breese do not explicitly disclose wherein the third field of view corresponds to a passenger side view of the vehicle from a passenger side tractor corner along a front of the tractor.
Grann teaches wherein the third field of view corresponds to a passenger side view of the vehicle from a passenger side tractor corner along a front of the tractor (Grann Fig. 1B; [0035]– If video of Class V and Class VI views are also desired, a camera housing 16c and camera 20c may be arranged at or near the front of the vehicle 10 to provide those views).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed and Breese by adding an additional field of view along a front corner of the vehicle as taught by Grann. One would be motivated by the increased blindspot visibility. Please see Claim 10 above for the applicable motivation reference.
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Rasheed and Breese teach the method of Claim 3, as outlined above. However, Rasheed and Breese do not explicitly disclose wherein the third field of view is a Class VI view.
Grann teaches wherein the third field of view is a Class VI view (Grann Fig. 1B; [0035]– If video of Class V and Class VI views are also desired, a camera housing 16c and camera 20c may be arranged at or near the front of the vehicle 10 to provide those views).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed and Breese by adding a class VI view as taught by Grann. One would be motivated by the increased blindspot visibility. Please see Claim 10 above for the applicable motivation reference.
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Rasheed and Breese teach the method of Claim 1, as outlined above. However, Rasheed and Breese do not explicitly disclose comprising a step of receiving fourth and fifth captured images respectively from fourth and fifth cameras respectively on the left side and right side of the vehicle, each of the fourth and fifth cameras provide the legally prescribed narrow- and wide-angle views that include the trailer.
Grann teaches comprising a step of receiving fourth and fifth captured images respectively from fourth and fifth cameras respectively on the left side and right side of the vehicle, each of the fourth and fifth cameras provide the legally prescribed narrow- and wide-angle views that include the trailer (Grann Fig. 1B).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed and Breese by adding narrow- and wide-angle views that include the trailer on the left side and right side of the vehicle as taught by Grann. One would be motivated by the increased blindspot visibility. Please see Claim 10 above for the applicable motivation reference.
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Rasheed and Breese teach the method of Claim 6, as outlined above. However, Rasheed and Breese do not explicitly disclose wherein the narrow- and wide-angle views respectively include Class II and Class IV views.
Grann teaches wherein the narrow- and wide-angle views respectively include Class II and Class IV views (Grann Fig. 1B; [0028]– schematic top elevational view of a commercial truck with a CMS shown in FIG. 1A providing a Class II , Class IV...views). Please see Claim 10 above for the applicable motivation reference.
Regarding Claim 15 (Original), Rasheed and Breese teach the method of Claim 14, as outlined above. However, Rasheed and Breese do not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second fields of view are Class V views.
Grann teaches wherein the first and second fields of view are Class V views (Grann Fig. 1B).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed and Breese by adding class V views as taught by Grann. One would be motivated by the increased blindspot visibility. Please see Claim 10 above for the applicable motivation reference.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, in view of Breese, and further in view of Grann and Lang et al, US 2002/0011927 A1 (Lang).
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Rasheed and Breese teach the method of Claim 6, as outlined above. In addition, they teach each of the driver side display and the passenger side display depicting the narrow-angle view of the vehicle (Rasheed Fig. 1), and the at least one display includes another display depicting the third captured images (Breese Fig. 5B). However, Rasheed and Breese do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one display includes a driver side display and a passenger side display respectively arranged in proximity to a driver side A-pillar and a passenger side A-pillar, the first and second captured images are depicted as a picture-in-picture view over the displayed narrow-angle views.
Grann teaches wherein the at least one display includes a driver side display and a passenger side display respectively arranged in proximity to a driver side A-pillar and a passenger side A-pillar (Grann [0008]– In a further embodiment of any of the above, the first and second displays are arranged respectively at left and right side A - pillars within the vehicle cabin). However, Grann does not explicitly disclose the first and second captured images are depicted as a picture-in-picture view over the displayed narrow-angle views.
Lang teaches the first and second captured images are depicted as a picture-in-picture view over the displayed narrow-angle views (Lang Fig. 5).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed and Breese by arranging displays at left and right side A - pillars within the vehicle cabin and adding a picture-in-picture view over the displayed narrow-angle views as taught by Grann and Lang. Although the picture-in-picture views in Lang are displayed over a mirror as opposed to a third display, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the third display of Breese to achieve the result in the application in order to increase blindspot visibility. Please see Claim 10 above for the applicable motivation reference.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, in view of Breese, and further in view of Lang.
Regarding Claim 13 (Previously Presented), Rasheed and Breese teach the method of Claim 1, as outlined above. However, Rasheed and Breese do not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second captured images are depicted next to one another.
Lang teaches wherein the first and second captured images are depicted next to one another (Lang Fig. 5).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed and Breese by depicting the first and second captured images next to one another as taught by Lang. One would be motivated by the increased blindspot visibility. Please see Claim 10 above for the applicable motivation reference.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rasheed, in view of Breese, and further in view of Hoyda et al, US 20210213881 A1, (Hoyda).
Regarding Claim 12 (Previously Presented), Rasheed and Breese teach the method of Claim 1, as outlined above. However, Rasheed and Breese do not explicitly disclose comprising a step of detecting one of a transmission forward gear and a transmission reverse gear; and wherein the third field of view corresponds to a passenger side view of the vehicle from a passenger side tractor corner along a front of the tractor when in the transmission forward gear, and wherein the third field of view corresponds to a rear-facing view from a rear of the trailer when in the transmission reverse gear.
Hoyda teaches comprising a step of detecting one of a transmission forward gear and a transmission reverse gear (Hoyda [0286]– These cameras can be configured to be engaged and to view these areas when a person puts the automobile into gear such as in reverse or forward); and wherein the third field of view corresponds to a passenger side view of the vehicle from a passenger side tractor corner along a front of the tractor when in the transmission forward gear (Hoyda [0286]– Alternatively, if the car is put in a forward gear, cameras 2102 and 2104 can be engaged so that the viewing regions 2101 and 2103 can be shown on respective screens such as screens 62, 64, 72, 74 and/or 40), and wherein the third field of view corresponds to a rear-facing view from a rear of the trailer when in the transmission reverse gear (Hoyda [0286]– For example, when a person puts the automobile in reverse, cameras 2112 and 2114 can be engaged and be shown on respective screens such as 62, 64, 72 and/or 74).
Therefore, it 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 to modify Rasheed and Breese by configuring cameras to be engaged to view front and rear facing areas when a person puts the automobile into the respective forward or reverse gears as taught by Hoyda. Although Hoyda refers to a rear facing view from the rear of an automobile and not a trailer, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the trailer views in Rasheed to achieve the result in the application in order to increase blindspot visibility. Please see Claim 10 above for the applicable motivation reference.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN P MCFALL whose telephone number is (571)270-0773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Joseph G. Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/C.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
