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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an image acquisition unit configured to”; “an imaging unit configured to”; a display unit configured to”; “a selection unit configured to”; “a distance detection unit configured to”; “a display control unit configured to” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (US 2025/0358520) in view of Meadows (US 2015/0165975), further in view of Kamata (US 2025/0153644).
As to Claim 1, Jun discloses A vehicle image display device mounted in a vehicle, the vehicle image display device comprising:
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a peripheral image ({This element is interpreted under 112(f) as the electronic control unit (ECU); fig.1, controller 11, para.0064, 0140), captured by an imaging unit configured to capture an image of a periphery of the vehicle ({This element is interpreted under 112(f) as the rear camera}; fig.1, rear camera 15, para.0057, 0061-0062),
a display unit configured to display the peripheral image acquired by the image acquisition unit ({This element is interpreted under 112(f) as the electronic inner mirror}, fig.1, display 17 may be digital rear-view view; para.0057, 0063); and
a selection unit configured to change a display mode of the peripheral image ({This element is interpreted under 112(f) as icons);
a distance detection unit configured to detect a vehicle-to-vehicle distance between another vehicle included in the peripheral image and the vehicle ({This element is interpreted under 112(f) as the electronic control unit (ECU)); fig.1, controller 11 in conjunction with sensor 13; para.0059, 0073-0074); and
a display control unit configured to control a display on the display unit such that, when the vehicle-to-vehicle distance detected by the distance detection unit falls below a predetermined threshold value, a degree of overlap between the other vehicle in the peripheral image and the selection unit that are displayed on the display unit is reduced ({This element is interpreted under 112(f) as the electronic control unit (ECU)) ; fig.1-2; para.0077, when the distance between the ego vehicle and approaching object is less than or equal to a first set value, the magnification of the display is lowered).
Jun does not expressly disclose a selection unit configured to change a display mode of the peripheral image image ({This element is interpreted under 112(f) as icons); a degree of overlap between the other vehicle in the peripheral image and the selection unit that are displayed on the display unit is reduced.
Meadows discloses a selection unit configured to change a display mode of the peripheral image (fig.8, user selectable icons 72, 74,76; para.0058).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jun with the teachings of Meadows, such that selectable icons are displayed on the rear-view mirror. The motivation being to allow a user to switch between the camera views and control the display of the rear-view mirror.
Jun in view of Meadows do not expressly disclose a degree of overlap between the other vehicle in the peripheral image and the selection unit that are displayed on the display unit is reduced.
Kamata discloses where an icon image I1 is displayed in the right end area or left area in order to avoid overlapping with rear vehicle image at center is approaching and where it moves the icon image from the left end area to a right end area when a rear vehicle is approaching and it skips the displaying of the icon image all three areas of the display of the rear mirror display rear view images of approaching vehicles (fig.7A-8B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Jun in view of Meadows, with the teachings of Kamata, such that when the vehicle-to-vehicle distance is less than a preset value (of Jun) the selectable icons (Meadows) are moved in order to avoid overlapping with the rear view vehicle image, thereby preventing safety from being impaired.
As to Claim 2, Jun in view of Meadows, as modified by Kamata, disclose wherein the display control unit is configured to change, when the vehicle-to-vehicle distance detected by the distance detection unit falls below the predetermined threshold value (Jun-fig.2A, s109; para.0033,0077), and a time-to-collision between the vehicle and the other vehicle is within a predetermined time (Jun-fig.2, para.0084-0085,0106), an angle of view of the imaging unit (Jun-para.0106).
As to Claim 3, Jun in view of Meadows, as modified by Kamata, disclose, wherein: the selection unit includes a plurality of icon displays (Meadows-fig.8); and the display control unit is configured to adjust, when the vehicle-to-vehicle distance detected by the distance detection unit falls below the predetermined threshold value (Jun-fig.2A, s109; para.0033,0077,0083,0097), and a time-to-collision between the vehicle and the other vehicle is greater than a predetermined time (para.0081-0082, 0083,0084; speed is greater than or equal to a preset value), positions of the icon displays on the display unit (Kamata-fig.7A-8B; icon is moved to avoid overlap with rear-view image).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 4 is allowable over the prior art of record since the cited references alone or in combination do not teach or suggest “wherein: the selection unit includes a plurality of icon displays; and the display control unit is configured to cause, when the vehicle-to-vehicle distance detected by the distance detection unit falls below the predetermined threshold value and a time-to-collision between the vehicle and the other vehicle is greater than a predetermined time, either or both of transparent display of the icon displays and display of some of the icon displays to be performed on the display unit” in combination with the other limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 is allowable over the prior art of record since the cited references alone or in combination do not teach or suggest “ wherein: the selection unit includes a plurality of icon displays; and the display control unit is configured to widen, when the vehicle-to-vehicle distance detected by the distance detection unit falls below the predetermined threshold value and a time-to-collision between the vehicle and the other vehicle is within a predetermined time, an angle of view of the imaging unit, and change, when the vehicle-to-vehicle distance detected by the distance detection unit falls below the predetermined threshold value and the time-to-collision between the vehicle and the other vehicle is greater than the predetermined time, positions of the icon displays arranged side by side in a left-right row at a lower portion of the display unit to positions of the icon displays arranged side by side in a left-right row at an upper portion of the display unit” in combination with the other limitations in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISMERY E. MERCEDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/DISMERY MERCEDES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights