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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 3-4 and 6-9 are deemed to contain allowable subject matter and are objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 8/29/2024 and 5/7/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 29 August 2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 is: “a control unit” in claims 1-8.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The present specification describes the control unit as including a processing unit such as a CPU and a primary storage unit such as a DRAM or other volatile memory (see paragraph [0012]).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hilldore et al. (US 2020/0164807) made of record in the IDS filed 5/7/2025 (hereafter Hilldore).
Regarding claim 1, Hilldore discloses a controller for performing processes related to a mirror which is provided in a vehicle cabin and configured to be capable of changing reflectance (see at least the abstract), comprising: a control unit configured to acquire a captured image based on a result of imaging by a camera configured to capture an image of a view behind the vehicle (see at least Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph [0018], where controller 50 is a control unit); and to determine a mirror reflectance, which is the reflectance of the mirror, based on a state of luminance of the captured image (see at least Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs [0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Hilldore discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Hilldore also discloses that the control unit is configured to: derive a degree of locality, which is a degree to which a portion of a view behind the vehicle is locally bright, based on the state of luminance of the captured image (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0028]); and determine the mirror reflectance so that the larger the degree of locality, the smaller the reflectance (see at least paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Hilldore discloses all of the limitations of claim 2.
Hilldore also discloses that the control unit is configured to: derive a degree of darkness, which is a degree of overall darkness of a scenery recorded in the captured image, based on the state of luminance of the captured image; and determine the mirror reflectance so that the greater the degree of darkness, the smaller the reflectance, for the same degree of locality (see at least paragraph [0032], where an average pixel value is a degree of darkness).
Regarding claim 10, Hilldore discloses a control system comprising: a mirror provided in a vehicle cabin and configured to be capable of changing a reflectance (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0018]-[0019], where 12 is a variable transmittance mirror); and a controller configured to perform processes relating to the mirror, wherein the controller is further configured to acquire a captured image based on a result of imaging by a camera configured to capture an image of a view behind the vehicle; and to determine a mirror reflectance, which is a reflectance of the mirror, based on a state of luminance of the captured image (see at least Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs [0018]-[0019] and [0028]-[0029], where 50 is a controller).
Regarding claim 11, Hilldore discloses a control method using a controller configured to perform processes related to a mirror provided in a vehicle cabin and configured to be capable of changing reflectance (see at least Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs [0018]-[0019] and [0028]-[0029]), comprising: a step of acquiring a captured image based on a result of imaging by a camera configured to capture an image of a view behind the vehicle (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0028]); and a step of determining a mirror reflectance, which is the reflectance of the mirror, based on a state of luminance of the captured image (see at least paragraph [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6-9 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.
Claim 3 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the control unit is configured to derive, as the degree of locality, a difference in luminance between a pixel having largest luminance and a pixel having smallest luminance among pixels on an attention line, which is a line extending in a predetermined direction on the captured image, as generally set forth in claim 3, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 1 and 2, from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 4 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the control unit is configured to: derive an average value of luminance of respective pixels in a plurality of blocks arranged side by side in a predetermined direction on a group of attention lines, which are lines extending in the predetermined direction in the captured image; and derive a difference in average values between a block having a largest average value and a block having a smallest average value as the degree of locality, as generally set forth in claim 4, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 1 and 2, from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 6 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that relation definition information defining a relation between the degree of locality and the mirror reflectance is prepared for each level of the degree of darkness; and the control unit is configured to derive a level of the degree of darkness, and to determine the mirror reflectance using the relation definition information corresponding to the derived level, as generally set forth in claim 6, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 1, 2, and 5, from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 7 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the control unit is configured to utilize a calculation formula to determine the mirror reflectance, the calculation formula having the degree of darkness and the degree of locality as input parameters, and outputting the mirror reflectance, as generally set forth in claim 7, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 1, 2, and 5, from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 8 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the control unit is configured to derive an average value of luminance of pixels composing an attention line, which is a line extending in a predetermined direction on the captured image as the degree of darkness, as generally set forth in claim 8, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 1, 2, and 5, from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 9 is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the controller is configured to derive, as the degree of darkness an average value of luminance of pixels composing a group of attention lines, which are a plurality of lines extending in a predetermined direction in the captured image, as generally set forth in claim 9, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 1, 2, and 5, from which claim 9 depends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0022541 to Uken et al. discloses a vehicular rearview mirror control system wherein image data from a rear backup camera is used to control the dimming of a mirror (see at least the abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights