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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 03/15/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
This action is in response to claims filed on 03/15/2024. Claims 1-19 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-19 are pending examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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:
“first detection unit” in claim 1 line 2, interpreted by Examiner as corresponding to the structure of an information processing device described in Par. [0091] and [0105] of the instant specification
“second detection unit” in claim 1 line 6, interpreted by Examiner as corresponding to the structure of an information processing device described in Par. [0091] and [0105] of the instant specification
“region identification unit” in claim 1 line 9, interpreted by Examiner as corresponding to the structure of an information processing device described in Par. [0091] and [0105] of the instant specification
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2-7 and 11-16 are 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.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6, and 11-12, the claim element “a region” is used multiple times and it is unclear whether each “region” is meant to be distinct from the others or if they refer to the same “region.” For example, claim 2 recites “a region of the adhering substance” and “a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance,” and it is unclear whether or not these “regions” refer to the same “region of the adhering substance in the captured image” recited previously in claim 1. Claims 3, 6, and 11 also recite “a region of the adhering substance” as is recited in claim 1; claims 3-4 also recite “a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance” as is recited in claims 1 and 2; claim 4 recites “an erroneous detection region” twice; and claims 6 and 11-12 each recite “a region”. Examiner suggests amending the claim language to include a descriptor in front of each distinct “region” (e.g.; amend “a region of the adhering substance” to read “a substance region,” etc.) to ensure clarity and understanding of the claim language.
Claims 5 and 7, and claims 13-16 are rejected based on rejected base claim 2 and claim 11, respectively, for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 15, the language of the claim is unclear. The claim recites “the operation control unit moves the vehicle in a direction in which the object within the angle of view of the captured image and outside the recognition region appears in the recognition region.” It is unclear how one would move a vehicle in a direction such that the object “outside the recognition region” and also “appears in the recognition region.” Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting claim 15 as the operation control unit moves the vehicle in such a way that the object that was detected in the captured image outside the recognition region will be detected in the recognition region.
Regarding claim 16, the language of the claim is unclear. The claim recites “the operation control unit moves the vehicle in a direction in which the object in the recognition region of the captured image is estimated to appear in the recognition region in the future. It is unclear how an object previously detected within the recognition region will “appear” within the same region. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting claim 16 as the operation control unit moves the vehicle in a direction in which the object detected within the recognition region of the captured image is estimated to still be within the recognition region in the future.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claim(s) regarding subject matter eligibility utilizing the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility is described below.
STEP 1: STATUTORY CATEGORIES
Claims 1-7, 17 and 19 do fall into at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories.
Claim 18 does not fall into at least one of the four statutory subject matter categories. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer-readable recording medium” recited in claim 18 can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission which are not eligible subject matter for patent protection, and thus the claim fails to claim statutory subject matter (MPEP 2106.03(II)). Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite a non-transitory computer readable medium as supported by the instant specification.
STEP 2A: JUDICIAL EXCEPTIONS
PRONG 1: RECITATION OF A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1 lines 2-4, claim 17 lines 2-3, claim 18 lines 3-4, and claim 19 lines 5-6 “detects an adhering substance on a lens of a camera provided in a vehicle from a captured image” recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes (observation, evaluation)
Claim 1 lines 6-7, claim 17 line 5, claim 18 line 6, and claim 19 lines 8-9 “detects the adhering substance from the captured image” recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes (observation, evaluation)
Claim 1 lines 9-10, claim 17 lines 7-8, claim 18 lines 8-9, and claim 19 lines 11-12 “identifies a region of the adhering substance in the captured image” recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes (observation, evaluation)
Claim 2 lines 3-5 “identifies, as a region of the adhering substance, a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance” recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes (observation, evaluation)
Claim 3 lines 3-7 “identifies, as a region of the adhering substance, a region in which a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance…matches a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance” recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes (observation, evaluation)
Claim 4 lines 5-10 “separates a first erroneous detection region that is an erroneous detection region from a region in the captured image…and separates a second erroneous detection region that is an erroneous detection region from a region in the captured image” recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)
Claim 7 lines 3-4 “detects the adhering substance from the captured image” recite(s) an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes (observation, evaluation)
PRONG 2: INTEGRATION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
The additional element(s) recited in the claim(s) beyond the judicial exception are first detection unit, second detection unit, region identification unit, first discriminator, neural network, second discriminator, optical flow, communication control unit, server, camera, and information processing device. The additional element(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional element(s) do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The elements first detection unit, second detection unit, region identification unit, communication control unit, server, camera, and information processing device are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more that mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. The claims recite “using” the elements first discriminator, neural network, second discriminator, and optical flow, but provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and are used to generally apply the abstract idea with limiting how the elements function. They are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer with a generic form of the aforementioned elements to apply the abstract idea. The limitations with these elements only recite the outcomes of “detects an adhering substance,” “identifies a region of the adhering substance,” and “performs learning without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. The “transmits” limitation recited in claim 5 is mere data output recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity.
STEP 2B: INVENTIVE CONCEPT/SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The additional elements recited in the claim(s) are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the additional elements recited in the claim(s) are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). As explained above, the elements first detection unit, second detection unit, region identification unit, communication control unit, server, camera, and information processing device are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The “transmits” limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d) subsection II) and remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide and inventive concept.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1-7 and 17-19 are not eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (JP2018142757A) in view of Kokubo et al. (US 2021/0097305 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sawada teaches “An information processing device (Par. [0028] controller 31) comprising:
a first detection unit that detects an adhering substance on a lens of a camera provided in a vehicle from a captured image captured by the camera using a first discriminator using a [first method] (Par. [0028] and [0030] teaches a controller 31 including one or more processors that executes a first process which recognizes the attached matter that partially obstructs the view of the camera 20 attached to the moving body 50 with respect to a captured image from the camera 20; Par. [0040]-[0041] teaches in the first process, the detection unit 36 detects the first area where the deposit adheres based on various methods from the captured image, including using the result of learning the image of the deposit in advance by machine learning to determine the first area);
a second detection unit that detects the adhering substance from the captured image using a second discriminator using an optical flow (Par. [0041] teaches using motion vector directions of each block divided within an image to determine the area with less motion as the first area where the deposit adheres with respect to the image); and
a region identification unit that identifies a region of the adhering substance in the captured image on a basis of a first detection result by the first detection unit and a second detection result by the second detection unit (Par. [0040]-[0041] teaches the detection unit 36 detects the first area where the deposit adheres in a first process which is based on various methods that detect the first area (described above)).”
However, Sawada does not explicitly teach the first detection unit detecting an adhering substance on a lens of the camera using a “neural network.”
From the same field of endeavor of detection of a dirty spot on a vehicle imaging device, Kokubo teaches a first detection unit detecting an adhering substance on a lens of the camera using a “neural network (Par. [0078] teaches a spot detection unit 632 that detects spot data related to a position and a size (area) of the spotted area in a captured image by using a spot detection neural network 632a pretrained by machine learning).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of Sawada to incorporate the teachings of Kokubo with a reasonable expectation of success to have the first detection unit taught by Sawada detect the adhering substance from the captured image using a neural network as taught by Kokubo.
The motivation for doing so would be to be able to detect spot data related to the position and size of the spotted area (Kokubo, Par. [0078]).
Regarding claim 17, claim 18, and claim 19, the limitations of this method claim, this computer-readable medium claim, and this system claim, respectively, are rejected using the combination of cited references Sawada and Kokubo based on the exemplary analysis of the device claim 1 above as the limitations of method claim 17, computer readable medium claim 18, and system claim 19 are commensurate in scope to the limitations of rejected device claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “wherein the region identification unit identifies, as a region of the adhering substance, a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance by at least one of the first detection unit or the second detection unit (Sawada, Par. [0040] teaches in the first process, the detection unit 36 detects the first area where the deposit adheres based on various methods from the captured image).”
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above, and further teaches “wherein the region identification unit identifies, as a region of the adhering substance, a region in which a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance by the first detection unit matches a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance by the second detection unit (Par. [0040]-[0041] teaches in the first process, the detection unit 36 detects the first area where the deposit adheres based on various methods from the captured image, including using the various methods in combination for detecting the first area (implying the detection results of the different methods match in order to adequately detect the first area)).”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches “a wiping control unit that controls a wiping mechanism for wiping off the adhering substance according to the first detection results and the second detection result (Kokubo, Par. [0097] teaches when the spot detection unit 632 determines that the optical system of the vehicle-mounted camera 15 has a spot, the spot removing control unit 635 tries to physically remove the spot on the optical system of the vehicle-mounted camera 15 by operating the spot removing unit 307).”
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above, and further teaches “wherein after operating the wiping mechanism, the wiping control unit determines whether or not the adhering substance has been wiped off on a basis of at least one of the first detection result or the second detection result (Kokubo, Par. [0097], [0105]-[0107], and Fig. 9 teach that after the spot removing unit 307 is operated, an image is obtained from the vehicle-mounted camera 15 again and the spot data is obtained again and an evaluation value is calculated).”
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches “wherein the wiping control unit determines whether or not the adhering substance has been wiped off on a basis of only the first detection result for a predetermined period after the wiping mechanism is operated (Kokubo, Par. [0097], [0105]-[0107], and Fig. 9 teach that after the spot removing unit 307 is operated, an image is obtained from the vehicle-mounted camera 15 again and the spot data is obtained again and an evaluation value is calculated) (Sawada, Par. [0041] teaches detecting the first area using any or a combination of various methods, implying using only one method can be chosen and which method to be used is design choice).”
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches “wherein the region identification unit sets a region excluding a region of the adhering substance in the captured image as a recognition region used for recognizing an object around the vehicle (Sawada, Par. [0042] and [0050] teach detecting, in a second process, a detection image which is a candidate for a recognition target, and a determination of the recognition target object is made from the detection image based on results obtained by removing all or part of the detection image which at least partially overlaps the first area).”
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches “wherein the region identification unit updates a region where the wiping control unit determines that the adhering substance has been wiped off as the recognition region (Kokubo, Par. [0052], [0097], [0105]-[0110], and Fig. 9 teach after operating the spot removing unit 307, the image and the spot data are obtained again and used to calculate an evaluation value; if the evaluation value is smaller than a threshold, a restored image is generated that simulatively reproduces a state where the vehicle-mounted camera 15 does not have the spot based on the recaptured image).”
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches “a recognition unit that recognizes the object from the recognition region of the captured image (Sawada, Par. [0042] and [0050] teach detecting, in a second process, a detection image which is a candidate for a recognition target, and a determination of the recognition target object is made from the detection image based on results obtained by removing all or part of the detection image which at least partially overlaps the first area).”
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 11 above, and further teaches “an operation control unit that controls an operation of the vehicle on a basis of the region of the adhering substance identified by the region identification unit (Sawada, Par. [0042] and [0050] teach detecting, in a second process, a detection image which is a candidate for a recognition target, and a determination of the recognition target object is made from the detection image based on results obtained by removing all or part of the detection image which at least partially overlaps the first area; Par. [0059] teaches when the determination unit 38 determines that there is a recognition object, the signal generation unit 39 generates a signal to be transmitted to the warning device 40 and/or the ECU 45).”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (JP2018142757A) in view of Kokubo et al. (US 2021/0097305 A1) and further in view of Yamaguchi (JP2019176300A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above, however the combination of Sawada and Kokubo does not explicitly teach “wherein on a basis of sensor data of an external recognition sensor used to recognize a situation outside the vehicle, the region identification unit separates a first erroneous detection region that is an erroneous detection region from a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance by the first detection unit and separates a second erroneous detection region that is an erroneous detection region from a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance by the second detection unit as the adhering substance.”
From the same field of endeavor of detecting contamination on a camera, Yamaguchi teaches “wherein on a basis of sensor data of an external recognition sensor used to recognize a situation outside the vehicle, the region identification unit separates a first erroneous detection region that is an erroneous detection region from a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance by the first detection unit and separates a second erroneous detection region that is an erroneous detection region from a region in the captured image detected as the adhering substance by the second detection unit as the adhering substance (Par. [0020]-[0022] imply that the boundary between the lamp-irradiated region and the non-lamp-irradiated region is a region that can be mistakenly judged; Par. [0054]-[0058] teach a dirt detection device that: extracts a contamination region included in the detection region 210 as a wide-area contamination region, a region irradiated with light from the license lamp (lamp irradiation region), and a vehicle vicinity contamination region; determines that dirt can be detected on the basis of the brightness of the lamp-irradiated region and the non-lamp-irradiated region and on the sizes of the wide-area dirt area and the vehicle vicinity dirt area; and detects the dirty area).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the are before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Sawada and Kokubo to incorporate the teachings of Yamaguchi with a reasonable expectation of success to have the region identification unit taught by the combination of Sawada and Kokubo separate an erroneous detection region from the detection results as taught by Yamaguchi.
The motivation for doing so would be to enable dirt detection even in the area of shift between light and dark areas (Yamaguchi, Par. [0022]).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (JP2018142757A) in view of Kokubo et al. (US 2021/0097305 A1), in view of Yamaguchi (JP2019176300A), and further in view of Tanigawa et al. (US 2019/0019042 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sawada, Kokubo, and Yamaguchi teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above, however the combination of Sawada, Kokubo, and Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach “a communication control unit that transmits the captured image including the first erroneous detection region to a server that performs learning using the neural network.”
From the same field of endeavor of detecting adherent on a camera, Tanigawa teaches “a communication control unit that transmits the captured image including the first erroneous detection region to a server that performs learning using the neural network (Par. [0071] teaches a server 12 acquires and stores images that are transmitted from a plurality of terminal apparatuses, such as images from a vehicle camera, and uses the images as training images to construct a recognition model, which may be a neural network (Par. [0047]), by learning the types of adherents in the training images).”
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Sawada, Kokubo, and Yamaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Tanigawa with a reasonable expectation of success to include in the device taught by the combination of Sawada, Kokubo, and Yamaguchi a communication control unit that transmits captured images to a server to perform learning using a neural network as taught by Tanigawa.
The motivation for doing so would be to more highly accurately detect an adherent shown in a photographed image (Tanigawa, Par. [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sawada, Kokubo, Yamaguchi, and Tanigawa teaches all the limitations of claim 5 above, and further teaches “wherein the communication control unit transmits the captured image including a region that is not detected by the first detection unit as a region of the adhering substant and is detected by the second detection unit as a region of the adhering substance to the server (Tanigawa, Par. [0071] teaches a server 12 acquires and stores images that are transmitted from a plurality of terminal apparatuses, such as images from a vehicle camera (including images including various detected or undetected regions), and uses the images as training images to construct a recognition model, which may be a neural network (Par. [0047]), by learning the types of adherents in the training images).”
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sawada, Kokubo, Yamaguchi, and Tanigawa teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches “wherein the first detection unit detects the adhering substance from the captured image using the first discriminator obtained by learning using the captured image transmitted to the server as learning data (Sawada, Par. [0040]-[0041] teaches in the first process, the detection unit 36 detects the first area where the deposit adheres based on various methods from the captured image, including using the result of learning the image of the deposit in advance by machine learning to determine the first area) (Tanigawa, Par. [0071] teaches a server 12 acquires and stores images that are transmitted from a plurality of terminal apparatuses, such as images from a vehicle camera, and uses the images as training images to construct a recognition model by learning the types of adherents in the training images, and transmits the constructed recognition model to the vehicle 11 for learning).”
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawada (JP2018142757A) in view of Kokubo et al. (US 2021/0097305 A1) and further in view of Masaru et al. (JP2019127073A), using the interpretation of claims described above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 14 above, however the combination of Sawada and Kokubo does not explicitly teach “wherein the operation control unit moves the vehicle in a direction in which the object within an angle of view of the captured image and outside the recognition region appears in the recognition region.”
From the same field of endeavor of detecting a dirty region on an image captured by a vehicle camera, Masaru teaches “wherein the operation control unit moves the vehicle in a direction in which the object within an angle of view of the captured image and outside the recognition region appears in the recognition region (Par. [0038]-[0043] teaches if the recognizing unit 145 cannot detect the empty parking frame F (object) the detecting unit 144 performs the detection operation on the first area where an adhering substance is present while the vehicle passes through the facing position O where the image device 130 and the parking region A face each other, allowing the parking frame F to be detected smoothly).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Sawada and Kokubo to incorporate the teachings of Masaru with a reasonable expectation of success to have the operation control unit taught by the combination of Sawada and Kokubo move the vehicle in a direction in which the object within a region containing the adhering substance will appear in the recognition region as taught by Masaru.
The motivation for doing so would be to detect a parking frame even when an object is present on a camera lens (Masaru, Par. [0005]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sawada and Kokubo teaches all the limitations of claim 14 above, however the combination of Sawada and Kokubo does not explicitly teach “wherein the operation control unit moves the vehicle in a direction in which the object within the recognition region of the captured image is estimated to appear in the recognition region in the future.”
From the same field of endeavor of detecting a dirty region on an image captured by a vehicle camera, Masaru teaches “wherein the operation control unit moves the vehicle in a direction in which the object within the recognition region of the captured image is estimated to appear in the recognition region in the future (Par. [0024] teaches if a first region in which a deposit on the lens of the imaging device 130 exists, a second parking route R2 is set, which is a route that passes through the detection position P1 where the empty parking frame F can be detected, by using a second region where there is no deposit on the lens of the device 130).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to modify the teachings of the combination of Sawada and Kokubo to incorporate the teachings of Masaru with a reasonable expectation of success to have the operation control unit taught by the combination of Sawada and Kokubo move the vehicle in a direction in which the object within a region not containing the adhering substance is still in the recognition region as taught by Masaru.
The motivation for doing so would be to detect a parking frame even when an object is present on a camera lens (Masaru, Par. [0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE M FITZHARRIS whose telephone number is (469)295-9147. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 6:00 pm M-Th.
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, CHRISTIAN CHACE can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights