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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 6, 621. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “a first obtainment module”, “a second obtainment module”, “a recognition processing module”, and “as assistance control module” in claims 1 and 20.
The specification describes a first obtainment module 210, a second obtainment module 220, a recognition processing module 240, and as assistance control module 260 as being controlled by a CPU. As such, sufficient structure is provided in the specification and therefore no 35 USC 112(b) rejection will be made.
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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa (WO 2019188429), cited in the IDS dated 8/23/24, reference will be made to the translation provided by the applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 20, Ogawa discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which stores a program thereon, wherein the program causes a computer to function, an assistance control method, and an assistance control device comprising:
a first obtainment module which obtains position information of a first movable body detected from an image captured by a capturing device (see paras 39-40, 42-43, 45-46, and 48, cameras 60 and LIDAR 62 capture images of moving objects and obtain position information);
a second obtainment module which obtains position information of second movable bodies measured at each of the second movable bodies (see paras 39-40, 42-43, 45-46, and 48, cameras 60 and LIDAR 62 capture images of moving objects and obtain position information);
a recognition processing module which performs a recognition process by comparing the position information of the first movable body to the position information of the second movable bodies for each combination of the first movable body and the second movable bodies and recognizing, as a single movable body, a combination of movable bodies having a degree of coincidence of position information which is higher than a predetermined value (see paras 5, 17, 53-54, and 65, motion management system 50 uses information obtained from the cameras 60 and LIDAR 62 to track objects in motion and determine if a first moving object is the identical to a second moving object, an integration processing unit 124 determines two moving objects are identical based on location and time, threshold values are used in the determination process); and
an assistance control module which performs control for traffic assistance for a movable body based on position information of a movable body obtained by applying the recognition process to the position information of the first movable body and the position information of the second movable bodies (see paras 27, 63-65, 76, and 81, warning notification unit 128 sends traffic assistance information to a moving object to help avoid a collision based on the information obtained by the motion management system 50);
wherein the recognition processing module limits position information, among the position information of the first movable body and the position information of the second movable bodies, to which the recognition process is to be applied, to position information within a predetermined range which is set based on a position of the capturing device as a reference (see paras 49 and 65, the plurality of cameras 60 of the motion management system 50 each capture an image of a predetermined imaging range).
Regarding claim 2, Ogawa further discloses wherein the predetermined range is a predetermined and fixed range including a position where the capturing device is installed (see paras 49 and 65, the plurality of cameras 60 of the motion management system 50 each capture an image of a predetermined imaging range).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Ogawa further discloses wherein the recognition processing module compares a position indicated by the position information of the first movable body to a position indicated by the position information of the second movable bodies for each combination of the first movable body and the second movable bodies and recognizes, as a single movable body, a combination of movable bodies having a degree of coincidence of positions which is higher than a predetermined value (see paras 5, 17, 53-54, and 65, motion management system 50 uses information obtained from the cameras 60 and LIDAR 62 to track objects in motion and determine if a first moving object is the identical to a second moving object, an integration processing unit 124 determines two moving objects are identical based on location and time, threshold values are used in the determination process).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ogawa further discloses wherein the recognition processing module recognizes, as a single movable body, a combination of movable bodies having the degree of coincidence of positions which is higher than a predetermined value for a predetermined time (see paras 53-54, motion management system 50 uses information obtained from the cameras 60 and LIDAR 62 to track objects in motion and determine if a first moving object is the identical to a second moving object, an integration processing unit 124 determines two moving objects are identical based on location and time, threshold values are used in the determination process to determine a degree of coincidence).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ogawa further discloses wherein the recognition processing module further compares a moving direction identified from a history of the position information of the first movable body to a moving direction identified from a history of the position information of the second movable bodies for each combination of the first movable body and the second movable bodies and recognizes, as a single movable body, a combination of movable bodies having a degree of coincidence of positions which is higher than a predetermined value and a degree of coincidence of moving directions which is higher than a predetermined value (see paras 5, 17, 50-54, and 65, motion management system 50 uses information obtained from the cameras 60 and LIDAR 62 to track objects in motion and determine if a first moving object is the identical to a second moving object, server 66 stores history information related to the obtained objects, an integration processing unit 124 determines two moving objects are identical based on location and time, threshold values are used in the determination process).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Ogawa further discloses wherein the recognition processing module recognizes, as a single movable body, a combination of movable bodies having a degree of coincidence of positions which is higher than a predetermined value for a predetermined time and a degree of coincidence of moving directions which is higher than a predetermined value for a predetermined time (see paras 53-54, motion management system 50 uses information obtained from the cameras 60 and LIDAR 62 to track objects in motion and determine if a first moving object is the identical to a second moving object, an integration processing unit 124 determines two moving objects are identical based on location and time, threshold values are used in the determination process to determine a degree of coincidence).
Regarding claim 10, Ogawa further discloses wherein the assistance control module performs control for transmitting an alarm to at least one movable body among movable bodies which will possibly approach each other if it is determined that there are the movable bodies which will approach each other within a predetermined time based on position information of the movable bodies obtained by applying the recognition process to the position information of the first movable body and the position information of the second movable bodies (see paras 27, 63-65, 76, and 81, warning notification unit 128 sends traffic assistance information to a moving object to help avoid a collision based on the information obtained by the motion management system 50).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ogawa as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kondo et al. (US 2020/0241131), cited in the IDS dated 8/23/24.
Ogawa does not disclose expressly predicts a position of the movable bodies that have gone out from within a capturing range of the capturing device to outside of the capturing range; and determines whether there are the movable bodies which will approach each other within a predetermined time based on the position of the movable body which is predicted and a position indicated by position information of another movable body.
Kondo discloses predicts a position of the movable bodies that have gone out from within a capturing range of the capturing device to outside of the capturing range; and determines whether there are the movable bodies which will approach each other within a predetermined time based on the position of the movable body which is predicted and a position indicated by position information of another movable body (see Fig. 14, abstract, and paras 42, 57-58, and 90, The object detection apparatus derives recognition information indicating a state of a target object, and predicts a state of the target object at a next second observation timing, based on the recognition information derived at a first observation timing, the control apparatus 2 predicts the travelling direction of the target object based on a speed vector of the target object).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the position prediction of moving objects, as described by Kondo, with the system of Ogawa.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to avoid the collision of moving objects with each other or other moving or stationary objects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kondo with Ogawa to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. To further show the state of the art please refer to the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R MILIA whose telephone number is (571) 272-7408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571-270-3438. The fax 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.
/MARK R MILIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights