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 .
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “a size adjusting unit configured to convert a size”; “an object recognition unit configured to analyze”; “a result processing unit configured to inversely convert”; “the size adjusting unit is configured to: set”; “an inverse conversion unit configured to inversely convert”; “an analysis unit configured to analyze”; “the result processing unit is configured to inversely convert the size of the recognized object”; “the size adjusting unit converts the size”; “the object recognition unit is configured to analyze”; and “the size adjusting unit is configured to convert” in claims 1-4, 6, and 12-15.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high resolution” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high resolution” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high resolution” is not defined in the specification. The closest that the specification gets is “high definition” which is in reference to a high definition camera, and it is not applied to the relevant CIPV region. As such, two people of ordinary skill in the art can disagree on how many pixels are required for something to be high definition. There can be disagreements over whether 2000 pixels or 2 million pixels are enough for something to be considered a high definition. As such, it is too indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited units that perform the functions of claims 1-6 are generic placeholders, and the recitation of a “computation processing device” is similarly a generic placeholder which, under a BRI, would encompass any device that processes computations. Such a broadly claimed device which would include everything from an abacus to a supercomputer cannot be called anything but generic. As such, these elements are insufficient to add something meaningfully more.
In regards to claim 1, an image processing system for recognition performance enhancement of a closest in-path vehicle (CIPV), a size adjusting unit configured to convert a size of input forward image data of the vehicle, which input forward image data is obtained from a camera mounted on the vehicle, to provide converted forward image data of a predetermined size to reduce an amount of computation necessary for recognition of an object in the input forward image data (A person of ordinary skill can change the size of image data to a predetermined size. A person can simply imagine a bigger image, use a pencil and paper to draw a bigger image to be at a predetermined size like twice as big or half the size, and a person can do this even if the image comes from a vehicle or is intended to reduce an amount of computation or thinking that a person needs to recognize objects within an image); an object recognition unit configured to analyze the converted forward image data and to recognize the object included in the converted forward image data (A person of ordinary skill can recognize an object in that changed image data as people can recognize objects even if they are altered in size); and a result processing unit configured to inversely convert a size of the recognized object in response to an operation of the size adjusting unit to resolve image distortion included in the converted image data and, following inversely converting the size of the recognized object, to analyze an actual distance between the recognized object and the vehicle (A person of ordinary skill in the art can similarly convert the image back into the appropriate size or the size when the image was originally taken and then determine the distance between the recognized object and the vehicle. As a person can use differences in size to determine an actual distance).
In regards to claim 2, wherein the size adjusting unit is configured to: set a first predetermined value as a first decimation factor of a first predetermined region range of first predetermined coordinates of the forward image data (A person can set a value to be the same as a predetermined value and use it for a predetermined region which contains predetermined coordinates within an image), and set a second predetermined value as a second decimation factor of a second predetermined region range of second predetermined coordinates of the forward image data (A person can set a value to be the same as a different predetermined value and use it for a different predetermined region which contains different predetermined coordinates within an image), wherein the second predetermined value is a larger decimation factor than the first predetermined value (A person can also only use a higher predetermined value for one region).
In regards to claim 3, wherein the size adjusting unit is configured to set a decimation factor which is increased from a value that exceeds the first predetermined value to the second predetermined value as a region range is moved further away from the first region range of the first predetermined coordinates based on the first region range of the first predetermined coordinates (A person of ordinary skill in the art can increase a value until it hits the second higher value as the region shifts over time in the span of a video).
In regards to claim 4, wherein the size adjusting unit is configured to set a value between the first predetermined value and the second predetermined value as a decimation factor of a region range of coordinates between the first region range of the first predetermined coordinates and the second region range of the second predetermined coordinates (A person of ordinary skill in the art could set a value used to change the size of the objects in an image for objects between two different regions of an image).
In regards to claim 5, wherein the first region range of the first predetermined coordinates is a predetermined CIPV region (A person of ordinary skill in the art could make a region range of predetermined coordinates be identical to a predetermined region made by a computer or some other process. This is simply matching regions together).
Further, wherein the first region range of the first predetermined coordinates is a predetermined CIPV region (This is insignificant extra-solution activity as it merely selects a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as it merely selects that this first region be the same as a predetermined region).
In regards to claim 6, wherein the result processing unit includes: an inverse conversion unit configured to inversely convert the size of the recognized object in consideration of a region range where the recognized object is positioned, in response to an operation of the size adjusting unit (A person of ordinary skill in the art can change the size of an object in a region based on the region it is positioned in by adjusting all the objects in the region the same way); and an analysis unit configured to analyze a distance between the vehicle and the recognized object by converting image coordinates of the object inversely converted by the inverse conversion unit into actual distance coordinates in consideration of a predetermined factor based on a basic specification of a device used for acquiring the forward image data (As device is claimed so broadly that it could refer to anything including a pencil and paper and further a person can inversely convert the size of an image or object within an image, use those coordinates to determine the actual distance using a device such as pencil and paper).
In regards to claim 7, it is similar to claim 1, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 8, it is similar to claim 2, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 9, it is similar to claim 4, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 10, it is similar to claim 3, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 11, it is similar to claim 6, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 12, wherein the result processing unit is configured to inversely convert the size of the recognized object in response to an operation of the size adjusting unit to an original image size of the recognized object included in the input forward image data to analyze an actual distance between the recognized object and the vehicle (A person of ordinary skill in the art can convert the object back to an original size. If they could so with a predetermined size, it stands to reason that a human being could then recreate the original size of the image).
In regards to claim 13, the size adjusting unit converts the size of the input forward image data in a manner which disposes a greater number of pixels in a first predetermined region range of first predetermined coordinates of the forward image data than a number of pixels disposed in a second predetermined region range of second predetermined coordinates of the forward image data (A person of ordinary skill in the art can split an image into two separate regions, and further, since pixels make up an image, the mere requirements of a greater number of pixels would simply require a person of ordinary skill to be able to split an image into two regions with one bigger and one smaller. If there was a specification of counting the pixels in each side or a determination of that included, this would be significantly more. As it is currently presented, it would fall under a 101 rejection); and the object recognition unit is configured to analyze the converted forward image data and to recognize an object included in the first predetermined region range of first predetermined coordinates in the converted forward image data (A person of ordinary skill in the art can look at a specific region of an image and recognize an object within that region).
In regards to claim 14, it is similar to claim 12, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 15, wherein the size adjusting unit is configured to convert the size of input forward image data to reduce an entire image size while maintaining a high resolution of a number of pixels in a CIPV region of the input forward image data (As high resolution in this case is indefinite, a person of ordinary skill in the art can determine if an image is high definition or not, as such a person of ordinary skill can reduce an image to just the point that it is maintaining a high resolution).
Response to Amendment
Amendments, entered 11/20/2025, made have overcome all objections to the disclosure. Further, the amendments made overcame all previously presented 35 USC 103 based rejections and 112 rejections. No amendments were made to overcome the 112(f) interpretations of the claims. The amendments include a number of new claims which present some additional 112 related issues and 112(f) related interpretations. These are described in more detail above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are not rejected in view of prior art, so claims 1-15 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 or 35 U.S.C 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in regards to 35 USC 101 filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are largely focused on the claims purported technological benefit of improving the functioning of a computer or computer technology. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. The independent claims merely disclose that an image, from a camera on a car, is changed in size, and then an object is recognized within that resized image. The image is further resized again to correct any distortions from changing the image previously, and then a distance between the object and the camera is solved. These are all actions that a person of ordinary skill in the art can do without the help of a computer, and that a person can do mentally. As such, it cannot be considered to provide an improvement to computer functionality since the process can be achieved either completely mentally or without the usage of a computer at all. Further, the amended language of “to reduce an amount of computation necessary for recognition of an object in the input forward image data” and “to resolve image distortion included in the converted image data” are mere instructions to apply an exception MPEP 2106.05(f), particularly MPEP2106.05(f)(3) since this appears to merely state the abstract idea is applied to achieve a desired result. This is further corroborated by the very general nature of which the computing device as a whole is described which is at a high degree of generality and involving only various units. As such, the arguments made are not persuasive.
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 CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675