Detailed Action
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. 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 limitations are: “fog determination unit” in claim 1 and " load calculation unit” in claim 3.
Because the claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 3 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
As for the limitations “fog determination unit” and “load calculation unit”, they are interpreted as corresponding to [0030]-[0048] of the specification and Fig. 3 of the drawing. However, the disclosure does not provide the structure necessary to perform the claimed function.
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 wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “fog determination unit” in claim 1 and " load calculation unit” in claim 3 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over STAM (US 20060065821 A1) in view of UTIDA (US 20070272884 A1).
Regarding claim 1, STAM (Figs. 1-6) discloses a window fog detection device (moisture sensor and windshield fog detector 20) comprising a fog determination unit configured to determine a fogging state of a window of a vehicle by performing image processing on an image generated by a camera that captures an image of surroundings of the vehicle through the window ([0053]-[0056], [0029], and [0036]-[0037]; fog detector including an image sensor 32 to capture an image of a frond windshield and a microcontroller 38 to process the image to detect fog on a windshield).
STAM also suggests wherein the fog determination unit limits an image region to be used to determine the fogging state ([0055]). The examiner further cites UTIDA as a reference. UTIDA (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, and 18) discloses a window fog detection device comprising a fog determination unit (sensor 10 including an image sensor 11 and an image processor 19 to detect raindrop and fog; [0030]-[0031], [0037]-[0043], and [0070]-[0072]) similar to that disclosed by STAM, wherein the fog determination unit limits an image region to be used to determine the fogging state so as to reduce a load of the image processing ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]; a partial image region is used to reduce a load of image processing). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from UTIDA to the window fog detection device of STAM because the use of the partial image makes it possible to reduce the processing load as compared to the use of the entire image captured by the camera, which would reduce power consumption and increase processing speed.
Regarding claim 2, STAM in view of UTIDA discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, UTIDA (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, and 18) discloses wherein the limited image region includes a region near an end of the window ([0055] and [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from UTIDA to the window fog detection device of STAM for the same reason above.
9. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over STAM (US 20060065821 A1) in view of UTIDA (US 20070272884 A1) and further in view of UEMURA (US 20240119598 A1).
Regarding claim 3, STAM in view of UTIDA discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, but does not disclose the window fog detection device further comprising a load calculation unit configured to calculate the load of the image processing, wherein the fog determination unit limits the image region to be used to determine the fogging state when the load of the image processing of an entire region of the image is greater than a predetermined threshold. However, UEMURA (e.g., Figs. 1-2, 5-8, and 10) discloses a load calculation unit (load determining unit 121) configured to calculate the load of the image processing ([0042]-[0045] and [0083]-[0084]), wherein the determination unit limits the image region to be used when the load of the image processing of an entire region of the image is greater than a predetermined threshold (Fig. 5 and [0042]-[0045] and [0083]-[0084]; partial image is used when the processing load is greater than a threshold). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from UEMURA to the fog determination unit of STAM in view of UTIDA to calculate the load of the image processing and limits the image region to be used to determine the fogging state in accordance with the increased load. The combination/motivation would be to reduce the processing load, improve power saving, and increase processing speed.
Regarding claim 4, STAM in view of UTIDA and further in view of UEMURA discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 3, UEMURA (e.g., Figs. 1-2, 5-8, and 10) discloses wherein the fog determination unit narrows the image region to be used as the load of the image processing of the entire region of the image increases (Fig. 5 and [0035], [0084], and claim 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from UEMURA to the fog determination unit of STAM in view of UTIDA to calculate the load of the image processing and narrows the image region to be used to determine the fogging state in accordance with the increased load. The combination/motivation would be to reduce the processing load, improve power saving, and increase processing speed.
Regarding claim 5, STAM in view of UTIDA discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, UTIDA (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, and 18) discloses wherein the fog determination unit switches the image region to be used to determine the fogging state between an entire region and a partial region ([0033] and [0054]). As another reference, UEMURA (e.g., Figs. 1-2, 5-8, and 10) discloses wherein a determination unit switches the image region to be used between an entire region and a partial region (Fig. 5 and [0042]-[0045] and [0083]-[0084] and [0035]; image region to be used is selected between an entire region and a partial region in accordance with the load of image processing). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from UEMURA to the fog determination unit of STAM in view of UTIDA to switch the image region to be used to determine the fogging state between an entire region and a partial region. The combination/motivation would be to reduce the processing load, improve power saving, and increase processing speed.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUZHEN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1407. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-18:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7772. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUZHEN SHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623