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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 03/04/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2024-0030837 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 72, line 3, “computer system 700” should read “computer system 600”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, lines 9-10, “when a difference between the first velocity and the second velocity being larger than…” should read “when a difference between the first velocity and the second velocity is larger than…”.
In claim 20, lines 9-10, “when a difference between the first velocity and the second velocity being larger than…” should read “when a difference between the first velocity and the second velocity is larger than…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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 receiver receiving image information and a first steering angle,” “an object detector detecting an object and detecting a position of the object,” and “a comparator comparing a second steering angle…” in claim 1, and “an object detection step detecting a position of the object” in claim 11.
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.
Applicant has provided sufficient structure for the claimed comparator in paragraph 46 of the specification as “the object detector 120 may include an artificial neural network model that detects a feature point from image data and detects an object from the feature point” and has further provided sufficient acts for performing the claimed step of detecting a position of the object in paragraph 45 of the specification as “the image information may include … second image information received from the LiDAR sensor. The object detector 120 may … detect the position of the detected object based on the second image information.”
Applicant has not provided sufficient structure for the claimed receiver and comparator.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “a receiver receiving image information and a first steering angle” and “a comparator comparing a second steering angle…” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for being dependent on a previously rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The present application is directed to a non-obvious improvement over the following prior art references.
U.S. Patent No. 11794723 – which describes a method for calculating a compensation steering angle by comparing a driving steering angle with a calculated steering angle. The calculated steering angle is determined using a road model learned by receiving image information and the speed of the vehicle. The vehicle speed is adjusted based on the compensation steering angle being above or below a threshold.
U.S. Publication No. 2022/0266840 – which describes a driver assistance system that recognizes a rotation direction of the vehicle and a position of the change of an obstacle and determines whether the vehicle is moving forward or backward based on the rotation direction and change of position. The rotation direction of the vehicle is acquired based on a steering angle detector. Vehicle braking is controlled based on the determination of the vehicle moving in the forward or backwards direction.
U.S. Publication No. 2018/0188739 – which describes a method of automatically following a lane of a road by obtaining steering angle data, yaw rate data, and speed data to calculate a compensation angle of the wheel. The steering angle is adjusted based on the calculated compensation angle so as to keep the vehicle between the lane lines.
U.S. Publication No. 2016/0251030 – which describes a method for correcting a steering angle by capturing an image of a steered wheel and obtaining a reference image of the steered wheel at a reference steering angle. Based on a degree of coincidence between the steered wheel in the captured image and the reference image, a correction value is calculated to correct the steering angle.
Claims 11-19 are considered allowable, since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP §2111.01, none of the references of record, either individually or in combination, disclose the specific arrangement of elements in the same combination specified in independent claim 11 for a sensor correction method which compares a first steering angle obtained from a steering angle sensor with a second steering angle calculated based on a change of position of an object, specifically including:
(Claim 11) “A sensor correction method, comprising:
an information reception step receiving image information and a first steering angle from a plurality of image sensors and a steering angle sensor (SAS), respectively;
an object detection step detecting an object from the image information and detecting a position of the object;
a comparison step comparing a second steering angle calculated based on a position change amount of the object with the first steering angle; and
a correction step applying an SAS correction value according to the position change amount of the object to the first steering angle when a difference between the first steering angle and the second steering angle is larger than or equal to a first reference value.”
There are inventions in the field that provide similar functionality and/or have similar features, as the prior art of record shows. Applicant’s invention differs from the prior art of record by:
“a comparison step comparing a second steering angle calculated based on a position change amount of the object with the first steering angle; and
a correction step applying an SAS correction value according to the position change amount of the object to the first steering angle when a difference between the first steering angle and the second steering angle is larger than or equal to a first reference value.”
The examiner’s search failed to find this combination of features, nor was it obvious in light of the prior art. It is for these reasons that the claim 11 of the present application is found to be patentable over the prior art. Dependent claims 12-19 are allowable as depending either directly or indirectly from allowable claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665