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 . Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-21 were previously pending. Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended. No claims have been newly added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-21 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/20/2026 has been entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “cleaning system” in claims 1-11, 13-15, and 17-19, “propulsion system” in claims 2-4 and 12-19, “brake system” in claims 2-4 and 12-19, and “steering system” in claims 2-4 and 12-19.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “cleaning system” in claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-21, “propulsion system” in claims 2-4 ,12, and 14-16, “brake system” in claims 2-4, 12, and 14-16, and “steering system” in claims 2-4, 12, and 14-16 all use a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Cleaning system: [0040-0041, 0048]
Propulsion system: [0030]
Brake system: [0031]
Steering system: [0032]
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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 1-3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 2021/0409578 A1) in view of Yamauchi (US 2020/0391702 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a system, comprising: a camera assembly designed to capture image data at a plurality of focal lengths (see at least Fig. 5B, [0021, 0034, 0047] - Camera 211 can be a monocular camera comprising a plurality of n cameras having a same or similar direction with differing focal lengths.); the camera assembly including a transparent shield including an outer surface (see at least [0003, 0045, 0058] - lens); and a computer in communication with the camera assembly, the computer having a processor and a memory storing instructions executable by the processor to (see at least [0030] - Some or all of modules 301-308 may be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination thereof. For example, these modules may be installed in persistent storage device 352, loaded into memory 351, and executed by one or more processors (not shown).): receive first image data including image data of an object captured by the camera assembly at a first focal length; receive second image data including image data of the object captured by the camera assembly at a second focal length, the second focal length greater than the first focal length (see at least Fig. 5B, [0021, 0034, 0047] - Camera 211 can be a monocular camera comprising a plurality of n cameras having a same or similar direction with differing focal lengths such that a first image from a first camera with a first focal length is substantially contained within a second image from a second camera having a second focal length that is longer than the first focal length.); actuate a cleaning system in response to a determination that the object is on the outer surface based on the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0021, 0034, 0047, 0058] - The sample set of images can be used to determine whether any of the cameras that make up the monocular camera need to be cleaned… initiating a camera lens cleaning procedure.).
Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose determine whether the object is either solid or liquid based on the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length; in response to determining the object is liquid, actuate the cleaning system to provide air; and in response to determining the object is solid, actuate the cleaning system to provide liquid.
Zhu does disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to: make a determination based on the first image data captured at the first focal length and the second image data captured at the second focal length; in response to the determination, actuate the cleaning system (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0021, 0034, 0047, 0058] - The sample set of images can be used to determine whether any of the cameras that make up the monocular camera need to be cleaned… initiating a camera lens cleaning procedure).
Yamauchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determine whether the object is either solid or liquid based on the image data including image data of the object captured at the focal length (see at least [0076]); in response to determining the object is liquid, actuate the cleaning system to provide air; and in response to determining the object is solid, actuate the cleaning system to provide liquid (see at least [0115-0116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Yamauchi into the invention of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. By analyzing the brightness level of the images, the type of dirt can be identified as either water droplets, muddy water, or dried on mud which enables the cleaning target to be automatically cleaned in an appropriate manner according to the dirtiness level by selecting air spray, cleaning liquid spray, or both according to whether the type of dirt is water droplets, muddy water, or dried on mud (Yamauchi – [0076, 0115-0118]). Cleaning the water droplets, muddy water, or dried on mud with the appropriate type of cleaning medium ensures that the sensor can be reliably used for accurate results.
Regarding claim 2, Zhu discloses wherein the instructions include instructions to actuate at least one of a brake system, a steering system, or a propulsion system based on the first image data captured at the first focal length and the second image data captured at the second focal length (see at least [0024, 0028, 0033, 0041] – avoid obstacles perceived… Perception module 302 may include a computer vision system or functionalities of a computer vision system to process and analyze images captured by one or more cameras in order to identify objects and/or features in the environment of the ADV. The objects can include traffic signals, road way boundaries, other vehicles, pedestrians, and/or obstacles, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu discloses further comprising wherein the instructions include instructions to: in response to determining the object is on the outer surface, actuate the cleaning system (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0003, 0021, 0034, 0047, 0058] - initiating a camera lens cleaning procedure); and in response to determining the object is spaced from the outer surface, actuate at least one of the brake system, the steering system, or the propulsion system (see at least [0024, 0028, 0033, 0041] – avoid obstacles perceived… Perception module 302 may include a computer vision system or functionalities of a computer vision system to process and analyze images captured by one or more cameras in order to identify objects and/or features in the environment of the ADV. The objects can include traffic signals, road way boundaries, other vehicles, pedestrians, and/or obstacles, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to actuate the cleaning system to provide either air or liquid based on the first image data captured at the first focal length and the second image data captured at the second focal length.
Zhu does disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to actuate the cleaning system based on the first image data captured at the first focal length and the second image data captured at the second focal length (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0021, 0034, 0047, 0058] - The sample set of images can be used to determine whether any of the cameras that make up the monocular camera need to be cleaned… initiating a camera lens cleaning procedure).
Yamauchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions include instructions to actuate the cleaning system to provide either air or liquid (see at least [0115-0116]).
The motivation to combine Zhu and Yamauchi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to select a subset of nozzles from among a plurality of nozzles of the cleaning system based on the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length, and instructions to actuate the cleaning system to provide fluid via the selected subset of nozzles.
Zhu does disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to: make a determination based on the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length; in response to the determination, actuate the cleaning system (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0021, 0034, 0047, 0058] - The sample set of images can be used to determine whether any of the cameras that make up the monocular camera need to be cleaned… initiating a camera lens cleaning procedure).
Yamauchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions include instructions to select a subset of nozzles from among a plurality of nozzles of the cleaning system, and instructions to actuate the cleaning system to provide fluid via the selected subset of nozzles (see at least [0115-0117]).
The motivation to combine Zhu and Yamauchi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 12 and 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-3, and it has been determined that claims 12 and 14 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-3; therefore, claims 12 and 14 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-3. Examiner note: Claim 2 recites “at least one of a brake system, a steering system, or a propulsion system” while claim 12 recites “a brake system, a steering system, and a propulsion system (see at least [0024] of Zhu).”
Regarding claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 1; therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claim 18 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 5; therefore, claim 18 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to: analyze the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length to determine whether the object is on the outer surface of the transparent shield or spaced from the outer surface of the transparent shield; and when the object is on the transparent shield, analyze the first image data captured at the first focal length with the second image data captured at the second focal length to determine whether the object is solid or liquid.
Zhu does disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to: analyze the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length to determine whether the object is on the outer surface of the transparent shield or spaced from the outer surface of the transparent shield (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0021, 0034, 0047, 0058] - The sample set of images can be used to determine whether any of the cameras that make up the monocular camera need to be cleaned… initiating a camera lens cleaning procedure); and when the object is on the transparent shield, analyze the first image data captured at the first focal length with the second image data captured at the second focal length to determine whether the object is solid or liquid (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0021, 0034, 0047, 0058] - The sample set of images can be used to determine whether any of the cameras that make up the monocular camera need to be cleaned… initiating a camera lens cleaning procedure).
Yamauchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: when the object is on the transparent shield, analyze the image data captured at the focal length to determine whether the object is solid or liquid (see at least [0076]).
The motivation to combine Zhu and Yamauchi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to: when the object is on the outer surface of the transparent shield, analyze the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length to determine whether the object is solid or liquid.
Zhu does disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to: wherein the instructions include instructions to: analyze the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0021, 0034, 0047, 0058] - The sample set of images can be used to determine whether any of the cameras that make up the monocular camera need to be cleaned… initiating a camera lens cleaning procedure).
Yamauchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions include instructions to: when the object is on the outer surface of the transparent shield, analyze the image data including image data of the object captured at the focal length to determine whether the object is solid or liquid (see at least [0076, 0115-0116]).
The motivation to combine Zhu and Yamauchi is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Yamauchi and Yang (US 2021/0272304 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to analyze the first image data and the second image data to determine whether the object in the field of view of the camera assembly is either on the outer surface or spaced from the outer surface with a neural network trained to use the first image data captured at the first focal length and the second image data captured at the second focal length as input data.
Zhu does disclose wherein the instructions include instructions to analyze the first image data and the second image data to determine whether the object in the field of view of the camera assembly is either on the outer surface or spaced from the outer surface using the first image data captured at the first focal length and the second image data captured at the second focal length as input data (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0033-0034, 0041, 0047, 0058] - The sample set of images can be used to determine whether any of the cameras that make up the monocular camera need to be cleaned… process and analyze images captured by one or more cameras in order to identify objects and/or features in the environment of the ADV. The objects can include traffic signals, road way boundaries, other vehicles, pedestrians, and/or obstacles, etc.).
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions include instructions to determine with a neural network trained to use the images as input data (see at least [0041, 0074] - train the machine learning model(s) 104 to predict the distance(s) 106 of one or more objects and/or obstacles in the environment using images alone as input data… neural network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Yang into the invention of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of more accurately and reliably predicting distances to objects or obstacles (Yang – [0007]). The broad recitation of using a trained neural network is merely applying a known technique (as demonstrated by Yang) to a known device (Zhu’s vehicle) which is ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 4, and it has been determined that claim 15 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 4; therefore, claim 15 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 4.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Yamauchi and Tsuchiya (US 2006/0092506 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the camera assembly includes a lens assembly and the instructions include instructions to identify fog entrapped in the lens assembly based on the first image data captured at the first focal length and the second image data captured at the second focal length.
Zhu does disclose wherein the wherein the camera assembly includes a lens assembly and the instructions include instructions to make an identification based on the first image data captured at the first focal length and the second image data captured at the second focal length (see at least abstract, Figs. 5B, 6A-6B, [0021, 0034, 0047, 0058] - The sample set of images can be used to determine whether any of the cameras that make up the monocular camera need to be cleaned… initiating a camera lens cleaning procedure).
Tsuchiya teaches the following limitations: wherein the camera assembly includes a lens assembly and the instructions include instructions to identify fog entrapped in the lens assembly (see at least [0130]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Tsuchiya into the invention of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of determining that dew condensation is present so that it can be eliminated to prevent the degradation of the images (Tsuchiya – [0130]). Furthermore, since Zhu already teaches identifying objects (i.e., dirt) on the lens of the camera, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that advantage of allowing detection of objects (i.e., dirt, droplets, dust, etc.,) on the inner and outer surface of the lens. By doing so, the necessary corrective actions can be taken to ensure that the reliability of the object detection can be maintained.
Regarding claim 19, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 8; therefore, claim 19 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Yamauchi and Seshadri (US 2024/0129604 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the camera assembly includes a plenoptic camera.
Seshadri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the camera assembly includes a plenoptic camera (see at least [0019] – plenoptic sensor device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Seshadri into the invention of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing image data as well as depth or distance data representing depth or distance to objects present within the image and allowing different (or even all objects) within the image to be shown in focus (Seshadri – [0019, 0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the camera assembly includes an image sensor, a first micro lens defining the first focal length and positioned to direct light at a first portion of the image sensor, and a second micro lens defining the second focal length and positioned to direct light at a second portion of the image sensor.
Seshadri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the camera assembly includes an image sensor, a first micro lens defining the first focal length and positioned to direct light at a first portion of the image sensor, and a second micro lens defining the second focal length and positioned to direct light at a second portion of the image sensor (see at least Fig. 5, [0021, 0082] – The array of microlenses 508 of the plenoptic sensor device 500 is configured such that each microlens of the array focuses light reflected from the scene onto a corresponding portion of the image sensor 504. This causes the image sensor 504 to capture plenoptic image data of the scene that includes a plurality of sub-images associated with the plurality of microlenses. Each sub-image represents a portion of the image captured from a slightly different perspective. From this plenoptic image data a two-dimensional image of the scene can be generated. The two-dimensional image can be generated from the plenoptic image data at a variety of different focal lengths, allowing different (or even all objects) within the image to be shown in focus. Further, the plenoptic image data can further be used to determine depth or distance to objects within the image. Accordingly, the plenoptic sensor device 500 can, in some embodiments, provide a single sensor that is able to capture both image data (e.g., a two-dimensional image of a scene) as well as three-dimensional data (e.g., data from which distance or depths to objects present within the scene can be determined).).
The motivation to combine Zhu and Seshadri is the same as in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Yamauchi and Wang (US 2022/0276413 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first focal length is within 40 to 160 millimeters of the camera assembly and the second focal length is at least 10 meters from the camera assembly.
Wang teaches the following limitations: wherein the first focal length is within 40 to 160 millimeters of the camera assembly and the second focal length is at least 10 meters from the camera assembly (see at least [0054] - the focusing range may range from 10 cm to infinity – Examiner note: see Fig. 2 of the Instant Application, where the focal lengths FL1 and FL2 appear to correspond to a working distance rather than to a typical focal length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Wang into the invention of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of achieving ultra-macro adjustment for better image acquisition performance (Wang – [0054]). Cameras are known to have a wide range of focal lengths and corresponding working distances, providing more versatility by allowing different a wide field of view to be captured.
Regarding claim 16, Zhu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first focal length is between the camera assembly and a front end of the vehicle, and the second focal length is beyond the front end of the vehicle.
Zhu does disclose wherein the second focal length is beyond the front end of the vehicle (see at least Fig. 5B).
Wang teaches the following limitations: the first focal length (see at least [0054] - a closest focusing distance F in a focusing range of the long-focus lens is ≤1 cm – Examiner note: see Fig. 2 of the Instant Application, where the focal lengths FL1 and FL2 appear to correspond to a working distance rather than to a typical focal length).
Since it is well known for cameras to be placed at various locations on vehicles such as on the hood, embedded in the bumper, or on the roof, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Wang into the invention of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success such that the first focal length is between the camera assembly and the front end of the vehicle. The motivation of doing so is for the purpose of achieving ultra-macro adjustment for better image acquisition performance (Wang – [0054]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by implementing a focusing range of ≤1 cm to a camera assembly on a vehicle, and providing the camera assembly greater than 1 cm from the front end of the vehicle, that this would result in the focal length (i.e., focusing range or working distance) being located between the front end of the vehicle and the camera assembly.
Response to Arguments
Examiner note: Claim 3 in the amendments filed 3/4/2026 that have been entered was indicated as “Currently amended” but does not appear to have any new amendments and should have instead been labeled "Previously presented".
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 filed 3/4/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Zhu and Yamauchi fails to teach or suggest a computer programmed to "determine whether the object is either solid or liquid based on the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length," as in claims 1, 12, and 17.
Applicant argument A: Applicant argues that Zhu does not teach the claimed recitation that the determination of whether the object is solid or liquid be based on the first image data captured at the first focal length in combination with the second image data captured at the second focal length. Zhu compares image metrics, such as brightness or contrast, to determine whether a camera is dirty (see paragraph [0022] of Zhu), but Zhu does not classify the material state of an object on the lens, nor does Zhu use focal-length-dependent image information to do so.
Examiner response A: Nothing in the claim recites making a determination based on the first image data at the first focal length in combination with the second image data at the second focal length. The claim recites “determine whether the object is either solid or liquid based on the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length”. The limitation of being “based on” encompasses where the determination somehow takes into account the first image data, the second image data, or both. The claim does not recite logic for dynamically taking into account a combination of first and second image data. In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the determination be based on the first image data captured at the first focal length in combination with the second image data captured at the second focal length) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP 2111.01. According to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “determine… based on the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length”, the determination can be based on the first image data and the second image data. This limitation is recited at a high level, and the phrase “based on” is very broad. The claims do not recite any specific logic as to how the first image data or the second image data is used to make the determination. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that the first and second image data are used or taken into account in any manner to make the determination.
Applicant argument B: Yamauchi classifies dirt as water droplets, muddy water, or dried-on mud (see paragraph [0076] of Yamauchi), but does so without relying on paired image data captured at different focal lengths, and without any teaching that differences attributable to focal length are used to determine whether an object is solid or liquid.
Examiner response B: Nothing in the claim recites relying on paired image data captured at different focal lengths and that differences attributable to focal length are used to determine whether an object is solid or liquid. The claim recites “determine whether the object is either solid or liquid based on the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length”. Again, in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the determination relies on paired image data captured at different focal lengths and that differences attributable to focal length are used to determine whether an object is solid or liquid) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP 2111.01. According to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “determine whether the object is either solid or liquid based on the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length”, the determination can be based on the first image data and the second image data. This limitation is recited at a high level, and the phrase “based on” is very broad. The claims do not recite any specific logic as to how the first image data or the second image data is used to make the determination. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that the first and second image data are used or taken into account in any manner to make the determination as to whether the object is solid or liquid. Nothing in the claim recites any logic for taking into account a combination of both images, or taking into account differences in focal length in order to make the determination. Yamauchi captures images with a camera, these images corresponding to a focal length, and uses the images (which have the corresponding focal length) to make a determination as to whether the object is liquid or solid.
Applicant argument C: The Office's combination merely places Yamauchi's brightness-based classification into Zhu's system, without explaining why or how the recited solid-versus-liquid determination would be performed based on image data captured at two different focal lengths, as expressly recited in claim 1. The Final Office Action does not adequately identify an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Further, the rejection relies on hindsight by importing Yamauchi’s material classification into Zhu’s system, without identifying any teaching or suggestion.
Examiner response C: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Final Office action provides the same level of detail as to why or how the solid-versus-liquid determination would be performed as the instant claim (i.e., that images which have corresponding focal lengths are somehow used to make a determination of solid or liquid). If Applicant has support in the specification for some logic that is more specific than what is currently recited in the claim, Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim to include this logic. Currently, the specification does not appear to support any logic beyond the well-known practice of identification of an object in an image. Furthermore, the examiner does provide an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning – that when the type of object (mud, water, or dried on mud) is identified, then the appropriate type of cleaning can be applied to better clean the object (Yamauchi – [0076, 0115-0118]). Finally, Applicant asserts that the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight but provides no arguments or evidence to support this assertion.
Applicant argument D: Applicant argues that Zhu and Yamauchi do not determine whether an object is on or spaced from a transparent shield using paired focal-length image data as in claim 20.
Examiner response: D Nothing in the claim recites a hierarchical determination in which dual focal-length image data are first used to determine spatial location and then used to determine material state, or using paired focal-length image data. The claim recites “wherein the instructions include instructions to: analyze the first image data including image data of the object captured at the first focal length and the second image data including image data of the object captured at the second focal length to determine whether the object is on the outer surface of the transparent shield or spaced from the outer surface of the transparent shield; and when the object is on the transparent shield, analyze the first image data captured at the first focal length with the second image data captured at the second focal length to determine whether the object is solid or liquid”. Again, in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a hierarchical determination in which dual focal-length image data are first used to determine spatial location and then used to determine material state, or using paired focal-length image data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP 2111.01. The same responses as above apply here. Additionally, Applicant appears to be attacking the Zhu and Yamauchi references individually. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Hess (US 2013/0002873 A1) is directed to an imaging or vision system for a vehicle includes an imaging sensor disposed at the vehicle and having an imaging array of photosensing pixels. A first optical element is disposed at a first portion of the imaging array and has a first focal length, and a second optical element is disposed at a second portion of the imaging array and has a second focal length. The first focal length is longer than the second focal length so that the first portion of the imaging array captures focused images of a more remote or distant scene than that of the second portion of the imaging array. The first portion of the imaging array may capture images of a scene occurring forwardly of the vehicle and the second portion of the imaging array may capture images of a surface of the vehicle windshield.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights