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 filed 09/08/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
PNG
media_image1.png
641
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
234
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner disagrees with head change amount. Campbell discloses the system can determine a body position (e.g. a distance, orientation and/or location of the board and/or head) of the driver (full text para 40). Whether the body and/or head of the driver moves or changes, the system detects the change, where the camera lens (112d) is attached to the backside of the mirror (130a), where the system detects changes (amounts) in head/face movements (full text para 41). Campbell discloses the display changes when the body position of the driver (e.g. location of the head, face, body and/or gaze) of the driver changes (full text para 66), including if the drivers head has moved toward the door (closer to the display) (full text para 67).
The applicant states the sensor of the claims is different then the pixel analysis of the instant invention. The examiner notes applicant’s own disclosure (para 25) states the sensor may be CCD camera, CMOS sensor (para 25), which is met by Campbell which discloses digital cameras, which inherently includes either a CCD or CMOS sensor (conventionally CMOS for digital cameras).
Regarding the display of the invention not being the change in FOV, the examiner notes the claims do not include any language that states the display does not include the FOV change, however the examiner notes applicant own disclosure (para 31) includes FOV changes for display based upon driver head changes/movement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell, US 10,116,873
PNG
media_image3.png
406
611
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Campbell discloses that the camera system 100 may include a cameras (102-a-n), include lenses 112a-n in the rear of the vehicle 50 (see full text para 39) where camera 112b and 112c can capture both sides (the rear portion includes both sides of the rear area, (Fig 4-5), where the cameras may also include wide-angle lens (full text para 144) and also may include 180/360 degree dewarping (full text para 18).
The claimed electronic display..is met by display 130, which can be implemented on both the driver and passenger side view mirror (full text para 33), as an eMIrror (full text para 19) where the video captured from the camera(s) may be presented to the display (full text para 24, 26)
The claimed sensor is met by capture device 102a, Fig 3 which is used to detect the driver (full text para 40, 41, 52) which include the distance from the lens 112 (para 59, 61-64), orientation or location of the body and/or head of the driver (58, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67,68, 69, 84 (and eyes of the driver), 109, 115, 123, 132, 134, 140-142, 144 including also the gaze of the driver (52, 66, 69-71, 109, 116, 138, 141.
The claimed processor…is met by processor 106 which may adjust/transform the captured images (para 45, 52 53, 70, 71, 76, 94, 112, 113, 120-121, 124-128, 140, 142) based upon the gaze/eyes/head orientation of the driver.
In considering claim 2,
Campbell discloses that the processor may zoom (increase when driver leans forward (para 143) and adjust the zoom level (para 74) and/or crop (para 24, 75, 97, 98, 112, 114, 128, 129) the capture window based upon the forward/backward lean of the driver, where the ratio of the distance of the driver from the eMirror (full text para 133, 143) determines the adjustment/transformation.
In considering claims 3-4,
Refer to claim 2, which address zooming based upon distance between the
drivers (head/body) and display/eMirror, where less distance increase zoom and ‘
more distance the zoom is decreased (zoom out).
In considering claim 5,
Campbell discloses that based upon gaze/eyes/head position and distance from the display/eMirror determines the camera FOV/direction (full text para 47, 52, 69, 108, 109) and also including other vehicle sensor (steering wheel, turn signal etc..) to determine what is displayed on the display/eMirror, which can include opposite directions, front/back, left/right etc..
In considering claim 6,
Campbell disclose the location (movement) of the drivers eyes are detected to determine the display format/adjustment/transformation (full text para 60, 64, 65, 84.
In considering claim 7,
Campbell discloses that the drivers eyes, head and/or body position, determines the FOV, angles of images displayed, including cropping and/or zooming in/out of the display for distance (full text para 46, 70, 112 and 114) for eye display see (para 60, 64, 65 and 84).
In considering claim 8,
Campbell discloses the sensors/camera to capture the driver may be inside the vehicle (full text para 37) or may be implemented on and/near the emirror display 130 (full text para 141).
In considering claim 9,
Campbell discloses the camera system may be implemented as two or more regular digital cameras (full text para 28, 44).
In considering claim 10,
Campbell discloses that the driver and passenger side “eMirror” (Display) are electronic and configured to display the captured images by the respective cameras.
In considering claim 11,
Refer to claim 1.
In considering claim 12,
Refer to claim 2.
In considering claim 13-14
Refer to claims 3-4
In considering claim 15,
Refer to claim 5.
In considering claim 16,
Refer to claim 6.
In considering claim 17,
Refer to claim 7.
In considering claim 18, Refer to claim 8.
In considering claim 19,
Refer to claim 9.
In considering claim 20,
Refer to claim 10.
*(it is noted there is no PG Pub of the above patent, and thus the paragraphs cited are based upon full text paras of the patent document).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited reference on attached form PTO-892.
Previously cited by the examiner:
US 20240155078 – also discloses and digital mirror FOV automatic adjustment based upon drivers position (distance and angle) relative to the display (para 21).
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 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 2600 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