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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on May 9, 2024. Claims 1-16 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on May 9, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 for IT102023000010026 dated May 18, 2023.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome potential future rejections made using references falling between the filing date and the foreign priority date, because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. No action by Applicant is requested at this time.
Specification
Under MPEP 1.52(b)(6),
Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the paragraphs of the specification, other than in the claims or abstract, may be numbered at the time the application is filed, and should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number. Nontext elements (e.g., tables, mathematical or chemical formulae, chemical structures, and sequence data) are considered part of the numbered paragraph around or above the elements, and should not be independently numbered. If a nontext element extends to the left margin, it should not be numbered as a separate and independent paragraph. A list is also treated as part of the paragraph around or above the list, and should not be independently numbered.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the paragraphs are not numbered as requested by MPEP 1.52(b)(6). Examiner notes that numbering the paragraphs in accordance with MPEP 1.52(b)(6) assists with interviews and citations to the instant specification. Examiner kindly requests Applicant submit a new specification which follows the guidance under MPEP 1.52(b)(6).
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written in claim-like form rather than narrative form. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 4-8, 10, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 4-8, 10, and 14-15 recites and comprising and should recite “wherein the method/system further comprises.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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:
a. control unit… in claim 13. Structure for this limitation has not been found in the original disclosure;
b. processing unit… in claims 15-16. Structure for this limitation is found in the original disclosure to be “the processing unit 16 can be a pc or a server.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is:
…means of a group of cameras… in claims 1. This term includes the corresponding structure in the body of the claim the second of these positively claims the function and lacks a linking term;
…by means of a control unit… in claim 1. This term positively claims the function and lacks a linking term;
…by means of a processing unit… in claims 4 and 6. These terms positively claim the function and lack a linking term.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 13 along with corresponding dependent claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, each rejected claim contains one or more limitations comprising a term interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) yet fails to provide the required corresponding structure in the written description. For ways to remedy this issue, see the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below.
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.
Claims 2-3, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 limitations control unit… in claim 13 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. Specifically, Examiner has failed to find corresponding structure in the original disclosure for performing the claimed functions. 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.
The term seamlessly in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term seamlessly 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. It is unclear what is required of the invention for the views to be considered seamlessly covering the view of the surroundings when the disclosed cameras fail to provide a complete picture of the whole surroundings (e.g., below and above the vehicle). For example, seamlessly means lacking gaps or spaces which would preclude a system that fails to include top and bottom views. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this term to mean that the collection of overlapping images provides at least a full 360 degree view around the perimeter of the vehicle.
Each of claims 3 and 14 recites comprising at least four cameras (7), in particular six, plus in particular eight. It is unclear whether the “in particular” terms are required by the claim, and if they are required, how the system could at least eight and at least six simultaneously or at least six/eight and at least four simultaneously. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this claim as requiring at least four cameras.
The term ideal performance in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ideal performance 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. For purposes of this Action, Examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean comparing the behavior of the vehicle to legal requirements of the roadway.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0109450 (hereinafter, “Walker”; previously of record in the IDS dated May 9, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Walker discloses Method for recording a performance of a road vehicle (2) on a racetrack (see at least [0072] and the publication generally; the road vehicle performance may be recorded as the road vehicle traverses a roadway. Examiner notes that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, any roadway may likewise be considered a racetrack as a racetrack is an intended use of a roadway); the method comprising the steps of:
recording, during a racetrack performance and in a synchronous manner, by means of a group of cameras (7) mounted on board the road vehicle (2), a plurality of videos of a surrounding (9) of the road vehicle (2) from a plurality of views (8) at least partially adjacent to each other (see at least [0061] and [0092]-[0093]; a plurality of cameras may be mounted on a vehicle for gathering visual data which collect overlapping views);
wherein adjacent views (8) share an area (10) of overlap (see at least [0061]; the cameras capture overlapping views);
storing, by means of a control unit (12), on a storage unit (11) mounted on the road vehicle (2), the plurality of videos (see at least [0061], [0064]-[0066] and [0092]-[0093]; the information captured by the camas may be stored);
the method being characterised in that the recording phase takes place at least at a speed of 30 km/h or more (see at least [0078]-[0079]; the process may occur when a vehicle is not following a 55 mph speed limit (i.e., exceeds the 55 mph speed limit) which is faster than 30 km/h).
Regarding claim 2, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses wherein the set of adjacent views (8) seamlessly covers the view of the surroundings (9) of the road vehicle (2) while driving along the racetrack (see at least [0061]-[0062]; the camera views cover a 360 view around the vehicle as the vehicle traverses a roadway).
Regarding claim 3, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses wherein the views (8) are at least four, in particular six, more in particular eight (see at least [0061]-[0062]; the plurality of cameras may include any number of cameras, and a specific example of six cameras is disclosed).
Regarding claim 4, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses and comprising the further step of processing said videos, by means of a processing unit (16), generating an instant-by-instant aerial view (17) video of the surroundings (9) of the road vehicle (2) during the performance (see at least [0050] and [0107]-[0109]; any number of views may be generated including top-down views (i.e., aerial views), and the processes may be performed real-time).
Regarding claim 5, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses and comprising the further step of determining, instant by instant, according to the plurality of videos, the position and orientation on the racetrack of the road vehicle (2) during the performance and arranging, consistently with said position and said orientation, instant by instant, a plan picture (22) of the road vehicle (2) in the aerial view (17) video (see at least Fig. 15, [0050]-[0052], [0084]-[0086], and [0107]-[0109]; the position of the vehicle relative to the roadway lanes and other vehicles is determined, and a top-down (i.e., plan view) of the scene may be determined via the captured image data).
Regarding claim 6, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses and comprising the further step of processing said videos, by means of a processing unit (16), generating a three-dimensional mapping (18) of the racetrack (see at least [0105]-[0107]; 360 degree 3D dimensional space may be mapped via the image data and may comprise the roadway).
Regarding claim 7, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses and comprising the further step of determining, instant by instant, according to the plurality of videos, the position and orientation on the racetrack of the road vehicle (2) during the performance (see at least Fig. 15, [0050]-[0052], [0084]-[0086], and [0107]-[0109]; the position of the vehicle relative to the roadway lanes and other vehicles is determined, and a top-down (i.e., plan view) of the scene may be determined via the captured image data).
Regarding claim 8, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses and comprising the step of arranging, consistently with said position and said orientation, instant by instant, a three-dimensional model (23) of the road vehicle (2) in the three-dimensional mapping (18) of the racetrack (see at least Fig. 15, [0050]-[0052], [0084]-[0086], and [0105]-[0109]; the position of the vehicle relative to the roadway lanes and other vehicles is determined, and a top-down (i.e., plan view) of the scene may be determined via the captured image data).
Regarding claim 9, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses wherein the position and orientation are defined by combining, according to visual odometry techniques, the detected videos to a vehicular odometry detected during the performance (see at least [0050]-[0053] and [0107]-[0109]; any number of views may be generated including top-down views (i.e., aerial views), and the processes may be performed real-time and include vehicle odometry).
Regarding claim 10, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses and comprising the further step of defining, within the three-dimensional mapping (18), the trajectory (19) of the road vehicle (2) during the performance by combining different instants of said position (see at least Fig. 15, [0050]-[0052], [0084]-[0086], and [0107]-[0109]; the position of the vehicle relative to the roadway lanes and other vehicles is determined, and a top-down (i.e., plan view) of the scene may be determined via the captured image data. The relative position of the vehicle is determined and continuously updated as the vehicle moves relative to the environment).
Regarding claim 11, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses wherein the trajectory (19) of the road vehicle (2) during the performance is compared, within the three-dimensional mapping (18), to an ideal performance (24) (see at least [0078]-[0079]; the vehicle behavior is compared to legal requirements (i.e., ideal performance)).
Regarding claim 12, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses wherein each point in the surroundings of the road vehicle (2) is detected by at least two cameras (7) (see at least [0062]; the cameras may produce stereoscopic images (i.e., the surroundings may be detected by at least two cameras)).
Regarding claim 13, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses System (1) for recording a performance of a road vehicle (2) on a racetrack (see at least [0072] and the publication generally; the road vehicle performance may be recorded as the road vehicle traverses a roadway. Examiner notes that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, any roadway may likewise be considered a racetrack as a racetrack is an intended use of a roadway); the system (1) comprising:
a road vehicle (2) configured to run on the racetrack (see at least Fig. 1 and [0072]);
a group of cameras (7), mounted on board the road vehicle (2) and configured to record, during an on-racetrack performance and in a synchronous manner, a plurality of videos of a surrounding (9) of the road vehicle (2) from a plurality of views (8) at least partially adjacent to each other (see at least [0061] and [0092]-[0093]; a plurality of cameras may be mounted on a vehicle for gathering visual data which collect overlapping views);
wherein adjacent views (8) share an area (10) of overlap (see at least [0061]; the cameras capture overlapping views);
a storage unit (11), mounted on board the road vehicle (2) (see at least [0061], [0064]-[0066] and [0092]-[0093]; the information captured by the camas may be stored);
a control unit (12), connected to the group of cameras (7) and the storage unit (11) and configured to store, on the unit (11) of storage, the plurality of videos (see at least [0061], [0064]-[0066] and [0092]-[0093]; the information captured by the camas may be stored);
the system (1) being characterised in that the control unit (12) is configured to control the recording by the cameras (7) and the storage of the videos even at speeds of 30 km/h or more (see at least [0078]-[0079]; the process may occur when a vehicle is not following a 55 mph speed limit (i.e., exceeds the 55 mph speed limit) which is faster than 30 km/h).
Regarding claim 14, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses and comprising at least four cameras (7), in particular six, plus in particular eight (see at least [0061]-[0062]; the plurality of cameras may include any number of cameras, and a specific example of six cameras is disclosed).
Regarding claim 15, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses and comprising a processing unit (16), preferably mounted on board the road vehicle (2), which is configured to process said videos by generating an instant-by-instant aerial view (17) video of the surroundings (9) of the road vehicle (2) during the performance or by generating a three-dimensional mapping (18) of the racetrack (see at least [0050] and [0107]-[0109]; any number of views may be generated including top-down views (i.e., aerial views), and the processes may be performed real-time).
Regarding claim 16, Walker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Walker discloses wherein the processing unit (16) is further configured to determine, instant by instant, according to the plurality of videos, the position and orientation on the racetrack of the road vehicle (2) during the performance (see at least Fig. 15, [0050]-[0052], [0084]-[0086], and [0107]-[0109]; the position of the vehicle relative to the roadway lanes and other vehicles is determined, and a top-down (i.e., plan view) of the scene may be determined via the captured image data);
in particular, to define, within the video of the aerial view (17) or the three-dimensional mapping (18), the trajectory (19) of the road vehicle (2) during the performance by combining different instants of said position and said orientation (see at least Fig. 15, [0050]-[0052], [0084]-[0086], and [0107]-[0109]; the position of the vehicle relative to the roadway lanes and other vehicles is determined, and a top-down (i.e., plan view) of the scene may be determined via the captured image data. The relative position of the vehicle is determined and continuously updated as the vehicle moves relative to the environment).
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
a. U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0341812 which relates to racetrack mapping and image data collection for broadcast purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY P YOUNG whose telephone number is (313)446-6575. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6:30 AM- 4:30 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
TIFFANY YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666