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 .
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: movement amount calculation unit, first exposure condition determination unit, second exposure condition determination unit, three-dimensional information acquisition unit, object recognition unit, exposure control unit in claim 1; storage unit in claim 3; and imaging timing control unit in claim 6.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0055572), hereinafter referenced as Shirai, in view of Sadasue (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0058598).
Regarding claim 1, Shirai discloses an on-board camera system comprising: a plurality of cameras arranged on an own vehicle so as to have a stereo vision area in which at least a part of a visual field area is overlapped (figure 1 exhibits right camera 3 and left camera 5 as disclosed at paragraph 29); a first exposure condition determination unit that determines a first exposure condition of the plurality of cameras (figure 1 exhibits CPU7; figure 3 exhibits step S120 and figure 4 exhibits step S220 in which exposure determination for a 3D object is carried out as disclosed at paragraphs 36 and 41); a second exposure condition determination unit that determines a second exposure condition of the plurality of cameras based on an external light condition of a vehicle exterior (figure 1 exhibits CPU7; figure 3 exhibits step 130 and figure 4 exhibits step 230 in which exposure is set based on the brightness as disclosed at paragraphs 37 and 42); a three-dimensional information acquisition unit that acquires three-dimensional information of the stereo vision area using an image imaged under the first exposure condition (figure 1 exhibits CPU7; figure 3 exhibits step S40 in which three-dimensional information is obtained as disclosed at paragraph 46); an object recognition unit that recognizes an object around the own vehicle using an image imaged under the second exposure condition (figure 1 exhibits CPU7; figure 2 exhibits step S70 in which object detection is carried out as disclosed at paragraph 52); and an exposure control unit that switches an exposure condition of each of the plurality of cameras to the first exposure condition or the second exposure condition (figure 1 exhibits CPU7; figure 1 exhibits step S30 in which the exposure condition of each camera is switched as disclosed at paragraph 45). However, Shirai fails to disclose a movement amount calculation unit that obtains a movement amount of a feature point of the stereo vision area imaged by the plurality of cameras based on a behavior of the own vehicle; and that first exposure control is determined such that such that the movement amount becomes less than or equal to a threshold value.
Sadasue is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Sadasue teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that road conditions which could impact vehicle travel are not missed thereby ensuring vehicle safety would have prompted a predictable variation of Shirai by applying Sadasue’s known principal of providing a movement amount calculation unit that obtains a movement amount of a feature point of the stereo vision area imaged by the plurality of cameras based on a behavior of the own vehicle (figure 9 exhibits velocity acquisition unit 102 which determines a velocity of the camera relative to a target as disclosed at paragraph 87; paragraph 138 teaches that this is based on the vehicle speed); and that first exposure control is determined such that such that the movement amount becomes less than or equal to a threshold value (paragraphs 138 and 139 teach that a time of exposure is determined to keep the movement amount between consecutive images at a movement amount; equation 4 disclosed at paragraph 133 teaches that the trigger condition is set so that a minimum overlap ratio Dr is maintained; by doing so, the movement is equal to the threshold movement amount to maintain the overlap ratio between images).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that road conditions which could impact vehicle travel are not missed thereby ensuring vehicle safety one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Shirai.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Shirai in view of Sadasue discloses the on-board camera system according to claim 1, in addition, Sadasue discloses wherein the exposure control unit prioritizes the first exposure condition over the second exposure condition in a case where a vehicle speed of an own vehicle is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (paragraphs 138 and 139 teach that a time of exposure is determined to keep the movement amount between consecutive images at a movement amount; by triggering a 3D image capture based on the speed, it is apparent that when the speed exceeds a value which would allow for capturing of the images with the second exposure condition, the 3D image capturing would be triggered).
Claim 8, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the system of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai in view of Sadasue and further in view of Hayes et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0094565), hereinafter referenced as Hayes.
Regarding claim 4, Shirai in view of Sadasue discloses the on-board camera system according to claim 1, however, Shirai fails to disclose wherein the plurality of cameras are arranged so as to have a plurality of the stereo vision areas, and the exposure control unit switches the first exposure condition and the second exposure condition for each camera group that images each stereo vision area.
Hayes is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Hayes teaches a vehicular camera system wherein the motivation of capturing images of both front and rear views around the vehicle to improve vehicle identification of obstacles would have prompted a predictable variation of Shirai by applying Hayes’ known principal of providing a plurality of cameras are arranged so as to have a plurality of the stereo vision areas (figure 1 exhibits front camera pair 104 and 106 and rear camera pair 108 and 110 which have different vision areas as disclosed at paragraph 16). When including a second pair of stereo cameras as taught by Hayes to the system of Shirai, it would have been obvious to control both the front camera pair and the rear camera pair of switching between first and second exposure conditions, as taught by Shirai, such that the combination teaches the exposure control unit switches the first exposure condition and the second exposure condition for each camera group that images each stereo vision area.
In view of the motivations such as capturing images of both front and rear views around the vehicle to improve vehicle identification of obstacles one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Shirai.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Shirai in view of Sadasue and further in view of Hayes discloses the on-board camera system according to claim 4, in addition, the combination discloses an imaging timing control unit that controls an imaging timing such that an imaging timing of a camera that images a first stereo vision area and an imaging timing of a camera that images a second stereo vision area are shifted by a predetermined time among the plurality of cameras (Shirai discloses CPU 7 which controls image capturing timing exhibited in figure 5 which is repeated every 33ms as disclosed at paragraph 34; the combination teaches both front and rear camera systems, therefore if both the front and rear cameras operate with the same process, a first front image captured in a first 33ms period will be shifted from a second image captured by the rear camera in an adjacent 33ms period by 33ms), wherein the three-dimensional information acquisition unit acquires the three-dimensional information based on an image imaged in the first stereo vision area and an image imaged in the second stereo vision area (by generating both front and rear three-dimensional information, the combined front and rear three-dimensional information is acquired based on an image in the front area and an image in the rear area).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai in view of Sadasue and further in view of Toth et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0201054), hereinafter referenced as Toth.
Regarding claim 7, Shirai in view of Sadasue discloses the on-board camera system according to claim 1, however, Shirai fails to disclose a light projector that projects light in synchronization with imaging of the camera.
Toth is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Toth teaches an imaging system wherein the motivation of providing supplemental illumination in low-light conditions would have prompted a predictable variation of Shirai by applying Toth’s known principal of providing a light projector that projects light in synchronization with imaging of the camera (figure 6A exhibits illuminators 608 which provide supplemental illumination as disclosed at paragraphs 76 and 77).
In view of the motivations such as providing supplemental illumination in low-light conditions one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Shirai.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5 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 because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the exposure control unit prioritizes the first exposure condition over the second exposure condition in a case where the three-dimensional information of the object included in the stereo vision area at a current point is stored in the storage unit, in combination with all of the other elements of claim 3 and claim 1 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Shirai in view of Sadasue discloses the system of claim 1, storage for storing images is also known. However, Shirai teaches alternately capturing three-dimensional images and mono images each 33ms period (paragraph 34) without placing a priority on any type of image based on what is or isn’t stored in memory. Therefore, the combination fails to teach or suggest “wherein the exposure control unit prioritizes the first exposure condition over the second exposure condition in a case where the three-dimensional information of the object included in the stereo vision area at a current point is stored in the storage unit” as currently claimed.
Claim 5 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest wherein the exposure control unit prioritizes, in a case where an object having a possibility of colliding with the own vehicle exists in any one of the plurality of stereo vision areas, the first exposure condition over the second exposure condition for a camera that images a stereo vision area in which the object is detected, in combination with all of the elements of claims 1 and 4 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Shirai in view of Sadasue and further in view of Hayes discloses the system of claim 4, however, Shirai teaches alternately capturing three-dimensional images and mono images each 33ms period (paragraph 34) without placing a priority on any type of image based on collision possibilities. Therefore, the combination fails to teach or suggest “wherein the exposure control unit prioritizes, in a case where an object having a possibility of colliding with the own vehicle exists in any one of the plurality of stereo vision areas, the first exposure condition over the second exposure condition for a camera that images a stereo vision area in which the object is detected” as currently claimed.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xie (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0013549) teaches a vehicular imaging system.
Bharwani (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0209206) teaches a method of controlling exposure parameters of vehicular cameras.
Lee et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0202535) teaches adjusting a frame rate based on vehicle speed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637