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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 22 January 2026. The Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 4-8 and 10-13 and canceled claim 9. Claims 14-17 are new claims. Claims 1-8 and 10-17 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 January 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 22 January 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 22 January 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 22 January 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-8 and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument is moot because the argument is directed toward new limitations that have not been previously considered. As such, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
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.
Claim 1-8 and 10-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “switching a camera configured to capture an image of…” in line 6 and further recites “…until an image captured by the camera is processed as compared to…” in line 8. It is not clear if “an image” in line 6 is the same “an image” in line 8. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “switching a camera configured to capture an image of…until the image captured by the camera is processed as compared to…” for the purpose of examination.
Claims 12-13 recite similar language as claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons above.
Claim 8 recites “base don the moving body…” which is ambiguous. It is not clear what “base don the moving body” means. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted by the examiner as “based on the moving body…” for the purpose of examination.
Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 14-17 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Ito (US20060252393).
As to claim 1, Hayes teaches a control device comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (Hayes, para 0027-0029, Fig. 1, Fig. 3); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (Hayes, para 0027-0029, para 0035, Fig. 1, Fig. 3):
detect a dangerous area based on sensor information about a management area where a moving body moves (Hayes, para 0037-0039: The sensors may gather or detect sensor information…accident information… environmental information comprising animals… schools… pedestrians, cyclists… road information comprising a pothole, a slit, an oil slick, a speed bump, an elevation or unevenness…, para 0047: a computing system for generating contextual risk assessment based on sensor information; also see para 0067-0068: forward camera shows a risky situation based one of more of a tailgating index, road frustration index…; Fig. 1, Fig. 3);
switch a camera configured to capture an image of the dangerous area from a normal mode to a low delay mode (Hayes, para 0067…increase the sampling rate of each camera based on risk assessment factors, i.e. delay lowers as sampling rate increases); and
notify the moving body according to a state of the dangerous area included in the image of the dangerous area (Hayes, para 0047: sensors coupled or in communication with the vehicle; para 0050: … use received information and contextual risk assessment system modules to develop alerts and recommendations, which may help to alert a driver of potential risks and with the use of the mobile device…; Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
Hayes does not teach wherein the low delay mode is configured to reduce a delay until an image captured by the camera is processed as compared to operation of the camera in the normal mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ito teaches …when executing a specific processing, the frequency of the clock signal of the CPU 100 is caused to change to a higher frequency, thereby enhancing the processing speed. Upon completion of the execution of the specific processing, the frequency of the clock signal of the CPU 100 is caused to change to a lower frequency, thereby reducing current consumption. In the initial condition at the time when power is turned on, the frequency of the clock signal of the CPU 100 is set to a low frequency in order to reduce current consumption (Ito para 0018, para 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes so as to include wherein the low delay mode is configured to reduce a delay until an image captured by the camera is processed as compared to operation of the camera in the normal mode in view of Ito et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the frequency of the clock signal of the CPU changes to a higher frequency for a specific processing of Ito can used in Hayes to achieve higher frame rate, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hayes and Ito because this would have achieved the desirable result of attaining both enhancement in the processing speed and reduction in the power consumption (Ito para 0048).
As to claim 2, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the camera is configured to monitor the management area (Hayes Fig. 2 and related text, also see para 0067-0068).
As to claim 3, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the dangerous area is an area where there is a dangerous event (Hayes, para 0037-0039: The sensors may gather or detect sensor information…accident information… environmental information comprising animals… schools… pedestrians, cyclists… road information comprising a pothole, a slit, an oil slick, a speed bump, an elevation or unevenness…; Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
As to claim 4, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the notification comprises an instruction to control a traveling of the moving body according to the state of the dangerous area based on the image (Hayes, para 0050: … use received information and contextual risk assessment system modules to develop alerts and recommendations, which may help to alert a driver of potential risks and with the use of the mobile device…; Fig. 1, Fig. 3).
As to claim 5, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 4, wherein the notification comprises an instruction to stop the moving body according to the state of the dangerous area based on the image (Hayes, para 0070-0071…when the traffic light changed color, the presence of stopped car in front of the vehicle…).
As to claim 6, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 1, wherein the moving body is configured to travel in the management area (Hayes, para 0042, para 0047, Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 6.
Yet, Hayes modified by Ito does not explicitly teach based on the moving body entering the dangerous area, switch the camera included in the moving body to the low delay mode.
However, Hayes does teach …increasing the sampling rate of each camera based on risk assessment factors (Hayes, para 0067) and …risk assessment engine 312 may predict future risk scores (e.g., 30 seconds ahead, 1 minute ahead, 5 miles ahead) (Hayes, para 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the camera is switched to low delay mode when the moving body enters the dangerous area for the benefit of capturing more details of the dangerous area while not wasting computing resources.
As to claim 8, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 6.
Yet, Hayes modified by Ito does not explicitly teach based on the moving body approaching the dangerous area, switch the camera included in the moving body to the low delay mode.
However, Hayes does teach increasing the sampling rate of each camera based on risk assessment factors (Hayes, para 0067) …risk assessment engine 312 may predict future risk scores (e.g., 30 seconds ahead, 1 minute ahead, 5 miles ahead) (Hayes, para 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the camera is switched to low delay mode when the moving body approaches the dangerous area for the benefit of getting the camera ready while approaching the area of concern so as to minimize missing critical information and details of the dangerous area.
As to claim12,
Claim 12 a process claim (control method) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim (control device). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 12 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Ito.
As to claim 13,
Claim 13 an apparatus claim (non-transitory computer-readable recording medium) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim (control device). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Ito.
As to claim 14, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 1.
Ito further teaches wherein the low delay mode is configured to increase an operating frequency of an electronic circuit performing each processing of the camera, or to increase a number of the electronic circuit (see at least Ito para 0017-0018, para 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes so as to include the above limitation in view of Ito et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hayes and King because this would have achieved the desirable result of attaining both enhancement in the processing speed and reduction in the power consumption (Ito para 0048).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Ito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of King (US20170284129).
As to claim 10, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 1.
Hayes modified by Ito does not teach wherein the moving body comprises a door whose opening and closing is controlled.
However, in the same field of endeavor, King teaches if burglary is detected inside the building by the embedded video camera of the door and/or the indoor movement surveillance system described below, the door can be locked electronically by a remote center…(the locking)…be immediately removed if a fire is detected or a person enters the building who is clearly not a burglar (King para 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes so as to include wherein the moving body is a door whose opening and closing is controlled in view of King et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the door under control of King can used in Hayes, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hayes and King because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 11, Hayes in view of Ito and King teaches the control device according to claim 10.
Hayes further teaches wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: based on the moving body being in the dangerous area, switch the camera to the low delay mode (Hayes, para 0067…increase the sampling rate of each camera based on risk assessment factors).
King further teaches the moving body is the door (King, para 0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes so as to include wherein the one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to when the door is included in the dangerous area, switch the camera to the low delay mode in view of King et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hayes and King because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Ito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi (US11036230).
As to claim 15, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 1.
Hayes modified by Ito does not teach wherein the moving body comprises a robot.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches … a robotic surface cleaner including camera and LIDAR module 8000, sensor windows 8001 behind which obstacle sensors are positioned, graphical user interface 8002, bumper 8003, cleaning tool 8004, and wheels 8005 (drive and castor wheels). FIG. 80E illustrates internal components including PCB 8006, wheel suspension modules 8007, sensor array 8008 with sensors 8009 (e.g., TSSP sensors, TOF sensors, LED transmitters and receivers) positioned around the front perimeter of the robot, floor sensor 8010, and battery 8011. Other examples of robots include a lawn mowing robot, a pizza delivery robot with an oven for baking the pizza, a grocery delivery robot, a shopping cart robot (Ebrahimi Afrouzi col 71, lines 5-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes so as to include wherein the moving body comprises a robot in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hayes and Ebrahimi Afrouzi because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 16, Hayes in view of Ito teaches the control device according to claim 1.
Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches wherein the moving body comprises a shopping cart (Ebrahimi Afrouzi col 71, lines 5-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes so as to include wherein the moving body comprises a shopping cart in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hayes and Ebrahimi Afrouzi because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 17, Hayes in view of Ito and Ebrahimi Afrouzi teaches the control device according to claim 16.
Hayes further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to: based on the moving body approaching or entering the dangerous area, switch the camera included in the moving body from the normal mode to the low delay mode (Hayes, para 0037-0039, para 0047, para 0067-0068)
Ebrahimi Afrouzi further teaches the shopping cart (Ebrahimi Afrouzi col 71, lines 5-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes so as to include the moving body is a shopping cart in view of Ebrahimi Afrouzi et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Hayes and Ebrahimi Afrouzi because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights