CTFR 18/645,609 CTFR 90458 Detailed Action 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment 2. The Amendment filed on 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 4-5 have been amended. Claims 6-10 have been added. Claims 1-2 and 4-10 remain pending in the application. Rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (pre-AIA 35 U. S. C. 112, second paragraph) are withdrawn. Claim Objections 3. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 has a typo error. In claim 7, “rightness” should be changed to “brightness” in accordance with amended claim 1. Appropriate corrections are required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 4. 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. 5. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over UTIDA (US 20070272884 A1) in view of OMAGARI (US 20170286022 A1). Regarding claim 1, UTIDA (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, and 18) discloses a window fog detection device comprising: a camera that captures an image of surroundings of a vehicle through a window (Figs. 1-3 and [0030]-[0033]; sensor 10 including an image sensor 11 to capture an image through a frond window) ; and a processor (Figs. 1-3 and [0030]-[0033]; sensor 10 including an image processor 19) configured to: calculate a load of image processing on an image generated by the camera based on the number of pixels ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]; image processing load increases in proportional to the number of pixels of an image) ; determine the load of the image processing of an entire region of the image ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]; image processing load is higher when the captured image having a higher number of pixels) ; determine a fogging state of the window by performing the image processing on the generated image (detecting and determining raindrop or fogging state of the window; [0030]-[0031], [0037]-[0043], and [0070]-[0072]) ; and limit an image region to be used to determine the fogging state of the window in response to a determination that the load of the image processing of the entire region of the generated image ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]; a partial image region reduces a load of image processing and is used to determine the fogging state of the window) . UTIDA (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, and 18) discloses determine the load of the image processing of an entire region of the generated image based on the number of pixels ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]) , but does not disclose determine whether the load of the image processing of an entire region of the generated image is greater than a predetermined threshold. However, OMAGARI (e.g., Figs. 1-2, 8, and 10-12) discloses an image processor configured to determine whether the load of the image processing of an entire region of the generated image is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0091]-[0092], [0098], [0161]; determine whether the load of the image processing of an entire region of an image is greater than a predetermined threshold, the load of the image processing is based on number of pixels) , and limit an image region to be used in response to a determination that the load of the image processing of the entire region of the generated image ([0091]-[0092], [0098], [0161]; a partial image region is used to reduce 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 OMAGARI to the window fog detection device of UTIDA 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. UTIDA discloses determining the load of the image processing based on the number of pixels but does not disclose the load of the image processing based on brightness, contrast of the generated image, power consumption, or usage of the processor. However, these limitations are alternative limitations, and therefore are interpreted as optional. In addition, applicant may refer to rejections on clams 6-10. Regarding claim 2, UTIDA in view of OMAGARI 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]) . Regarding claim 4, UTIDA in view of OMAGARI discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, UTIDA (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, and 18) discloses wherein the processor is configured to narrow the image region to be used to determine the fogging state as the load of the image processing of the entire region of the image increases ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]; a partial image region reduces a load of image processing and is used to determine the fogging state of the window) . In addition, OMAGARI (e.g., Figs. 1-2, 8, and 10-12) discloses wherein the processor is configured to narrow the image region to be used as the load of the image processing of the entire region of the image increases (Figs. 10-12 and [0091]-[0092], [0098], [0161]; a partial image region is used to reduce 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 OMAGARI to the window fog detection device of UTIDA for the same reason above. Regarding claim 5, UTIDA in view of OMAGARI discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, UTIDA (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, and 18) discloses wherein the processor is configured to switch the image region to be used to determine the fogging state between the entire region of the image and the partial region of the image ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]; switching to a partial image region reduces a load of image processing) . In addition, OMAGARI (e.g., Figs. 1-2, 8, and 10-12) discloses wherein the processor is configured to switch the image region to be used between the entire region of the image and the partial region of the image (Figs. 10-12 and [0091]-[0092], [0098], [0161]; switching between a partial image region and an entire image region to reduce 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 OMAGARI to the window fog detection device of UTIDA for the same reason above. Regarding claim 6, UTIDA in view of OMAGARI discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, UTIDA (Figs. 1-5, 7-11, and 18) discloses wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on the number of pixels of the generated image ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]; a load of image processing based on the number of pixels) . In addition, OMAGARI (e.g., Figs. 1-2, 8, and 10-12) discloses wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on the number of pixels of the generated image (Figs. 10-12 and [0091]-[0092], [0098], [0161]; a load of image processing based on the number of pixels) . 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 OMAGARI to the window fog detection device of UTIDA for the same reason above. 6. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over UTIDA (US 20070272884 A1) in view of OMAGARI (US 20170286022 A1) and further in view of KANEKO (US 20210044736 A1). Regarding claim 7, UTIDA in view of OMAGARI discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on rightness of the generated image. However, KANEKO (e.g., Figs. 2, 4-5, 11-15) discloses an image processor further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on rightness of the generated image ([0148]-[0149] and [0088]; load of image processing is based on a luminance value of an image area, a partial area is selected for image processing and correction) . 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 KANEKO to the window fog detection device of UTIDA in view of OMAGARI 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. 7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over UTIDA (US 20070272884 A1) in view of OMAGARI (US 20170286022 A1) and further in view of ZADOR (US 20040135898 A1). Regarding claim 8, UTIDA in view of OMAGARI discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on contrast of the generated image. However, ZADOR (Figs. 1-8) discloses an image processor further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on contrast of the generated image ([0055]; load of the image processing is based on image contrast) . 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 ZADOR to the window fog detection device of UTIDA in view of OMAGARI to reduce the processing load, which would reduce power consumption and increase processing speed. 7. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over UTIDA (US 20070272884 A1) in view of OMAGARI (US 20170286022 A1) and further in view of BAIK (US 20120154410 A1). Regarding claim 9, UTIDA in view of OMAGARI discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on power consumption of the processor. However, KANEKO (e.g., Figs. 2, 4-5, 11-15) discloses an image processor further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on power consumption of the processor (e.g., Figs. 4 and 5; calculating the load of the image processing based on power consumption of the processor) . 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 BAIK to the window fog detection device of UTIDA in view of OMAGARI to reduce the processing load, which would reduce power consumption and increase processing speed. Regarding claim 10, UTIDA in view of OMAGARI discloses the window fog detection device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on usage of the processor (UTIDA’s [0033] and [0054]-[0055] and OMAGARI’s[0091]-[0092], [0098], [0161]; a load of image processing is determined by an image size or a number of pixels of the image, which corresponding to usage of processor) . As another reference, KANEKO (e.g., Figs. 2, 4-5, 11-15) discloses an image processor further configured to calculate the load of the image processing on the image generated by the camera based on usage of the processor (e.g., Figs. 4 and 5; calculating the load of the image processing based on power usage or capacity of the processor) . 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 BAIK to the window fog detection device of UTIDA in view of OMAGARI to reduce the processing load, which would reduce power consumption and increase processing speed. Response to Arguments 8. Regarding claim 1 and new claims 6-10, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. In view of amendments, the references of UTIDA (US 20070272884 A1), OMAGARI (US 20170286022 A1), KANEKO (US 20210044736 A1), ZADOR (US 20040135898 A1), and BAIK (US 20120154410 A1) have been used for new ground rejection. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 2 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 3 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 4 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 5 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 6 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 7 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 8 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 9 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 10 Art Unit: 2623 Application/Control Number: 18/645,609 Page 11 Art Unit: 2623
Prosecution Insights