DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 28 April 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 28 April 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because there is no list of the applications submitted, only a cover sheet. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over URABE et al (2021/0012121) (herein “URABE”). In regards to claim 1, URABE teaches a computer-implemented method for ascertaining a position of a motor vehicle (1; 4) or of an object (2) (See Fig. 4 and p[0048] -p[0051] for determining the position of an object), comprising: optically recording data of a traffic environment having multiple motor vehicles (1; 2; 4) (See; Fig. 4 for multiple vehicles); detecting a reflection (3; 5) of at least a portion of a specific one of the See; Fig. 4, p[0048] and p[0081]-p[0082] for detecting a reflection object reflecting off object 503); ascertaining at least one prominent area of the specific See; Fig. 4, p[0048] and p[0081]-p[0082] for detecting a bicycle reflecting off object 503. Where the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “prominent area” could be interpreted as recognizing a type and a size of the object as disclosed); and ascertaining the position of the specific motor vehicle (1; 4) or the object (2) using the prominent area in the reflection (3; 5) (See Fig. 4 and p[0048] -p[0051] for determining the position of the object). URABE fails to explicitly teach that a reflection of a motor vehicle is detected and instead shows as an example, a bicycle rider. However, URABE does teach that the type of object reflected is determined so as to predict the objects size position and speed (See; p[0048], p[0052] and p[0083]), where it would have been obvious that the type of objects could also include motor vehicles that are obstructed from view of the driver. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to detect other moving objects such as motor vehicles in the reflections so as to better avoid collisions with any object. In regards to claim 2, URABE fails to explicitly teach wherein the object (2) is one of the motor vehicles. However, Urabe uses general language that would broadly assume that that the object could be another motor vehicle in the image (See; p[0048] “Further, the image data may present an object (hereinafter, referred to as a reflection object) which is different from the object, reflected on the object due to reflection. In such case, the object recognition unit 200 recognizes a type and a size of the reflection object presented in the image data.”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to detect other moving objects such as motor vehicles in the detected reflections off any object so as to better avoid collisions with any object.
In regards to claim 3, URABE teaches wherein the prominent area differs more visually from a first neighboring areas adjacent to the prominent areas than other areas of the specific motor vehicle (1; 4) differ from a second neighboring area adjacent to the other areas (See; Fig. 4, p[0048] and p[0081]-p[0082] for detecting a bicycle reflecting off object 503. Where the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “prominent area” could be interpreted as recognizing a type and a size of the object as disclosed. Where the bicycle is more prominent that other areas surrounding it).
In regards to claim 4, URABE teaches wherein the optically recorded data are recorded by a camera of a camera motor vehicle (1) that is one of the motor vehicles, and wherein the specific motor vehicle (4) is distinct from the camera motor vehicle (1) (See; Fig. 1 and p[0030]).
In regards to claim 5, URABE teaches wherein the optical data are recorded by a camera of the specific motor vehicle (4) (See; Fig. 1 and p[0030]).
In regards to claim 6, URABE teaches further comprising retrieving information about an outer surface of the object (2), and using the retrieved information in ascertaining the position of the specific motor vehicle (1; 4) or of the object (2) (See; p[0048] and p[0051] “Further, the image data may present an object (hereinafter, referred to as a reflection object) which is different from the object, reflected on the object due to reflection. In such case, the object recognition unit 200 recognizes a type and a size of the reflection object presented in the image data.”).
In regards to claim 7, URABE teaches wherein the reflection was detected on the outer surface (See; Fig. 4).
In regards to claim 9, URABE fails to explicitly teach further comprising detecting in the optical data multiple reflections of at least a portion of the specific motor vehicle (1; 4) on a number of the motor vehicles; ascertaining the prominent area of the specific motor vehicle (1; 4) in the reflections; and ascertaining the position of the specific motor vehicle (1; 4) by way of the prominent area in the reflections. However, Urabe does teach detecting at least the one reflection to ascertain the position of the reflected object (See; p[0048] and p[0051] “Further, the image data may present an object (hereinafter, referred to as a reflection object) which is different from the object, reflected on the object due to reflection. In such case, the object recognition unit 200 recognizes a type and a size of the reflection object presented in the image data.”), where detecting multiple reflections is a mere duplication of parts (See; MPEP 2144.04 VI B ( In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to detect multiple reflections so as to better avoid collisions with objects.
In regards to claim 10, URABE teaches a system comprising a digital electronic storage medium and a digital electronic processing unit, wherein instructions are stored in the storage medium, wherein the processing unit is designed to read out and execute the instructions, wherein the instructions are designed such that, when the instructions are executed, the processing unit is prompted to perform a method of claim 1 (See; Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627