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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment dated December 24, 2025. Claims 1 and 5-10 are pending. Claims 2-4 are canceled. Claims 5-10 are new.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “visual odometry using a first rut in the first image and a second rut in the second image as feature points”. This is not described in the Specification in any detail. At [0019], the Specification merely mentions the movement could be calculated using a technique of visual odometry. No description of how to employ this technique in the invention. There is no description of a first rut and a second rut could be timed without knowledge of the distance between the first rut and second rut. This appears to make the claim inoperable and would mean a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 also, if there was no way to perform the odometry.
Claims 5-10 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “calculate an assumed vehicle speed of the vehicle based on a driving force of the vehicle obtained from at least one of an accelerator operation amount, a brake operation amount, and a gear reduction ratio, and based on a gradient of the vehicle and the ground”. The Specification does not describe this in any detail. At [0023], the Specification describes only an assumed speed based on these factors but it appears to be impossible to calculate speed in this manner. This appears to make the claim inoperable and would mean a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 also, if there was no way to calculate speed based on these factors alone.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “configured to determine whether a settlement amount of wheels of the vehicle is greater than a predetermined threshold”. The Specification does not describe this limitation in any detail. At [0023], the Specification describes an embodiment where a settlement amount could be used to determine an off-road travel, but there is no description of how to measure settlement amount and where that would be measured and if this is measured by the camera or something else.
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 8-10 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 8 recites the limitation “the off-road”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “while the vehicle is traveling off road”. The hyphen is inconsistent and there is no introduction of “an off-road”, which doesn’t even make sense.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the image”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 introduced “an imaged captured by the camera”. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “an image of a road behind the vehicle”, and made secondary reference to “the image”. It is unclear, and therefore indefinite, if the image refers to the image captured by the camera or the image of a road behind the vehicle.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the off road”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “while the vehicle is travelling off road”. There is no introduction of “an off road”, which doesn’t even make sense. This may be intended as “the vehicle is determined to be traveling off road”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a driven wheels of the vehicle”. This may be more properly be “a driven wheel” or “driven wheels”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the ground”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the off road”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, which introduced “while the vehicle is traveling off road”. There is no introduction of “an off road”, which doesn’t even make sense. This may be intended as “the vehicle is determined to be traveling off road”. The hyphen may be appropriate but should be consistent in the Specification and claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the road that the vehicle is traveling on” and then “the vehicle is traveling off road”, ignoring the earlier limitation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 5-10 are rejected for incorporation of the errors of the base claim by dependency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended the claims and added claims and the current rejections are not addressed by the arguments.
The revised drawings are accepted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BERNS whose telephone number is (313)446-4892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
MICHAEL BERNS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/MICHAEL A BERNS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666