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: sun position calculation unit, visually-unrecognizable region calculation unit, output unit, visually-unrecognizable region acquisition unit in claims 1-11.
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.
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 and 11, 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. More specifically, the phrase “server device provided at a location independent of a vehicle” is not clear as to what is meant by independent of a vehicle. It is unclear if the applicant meant the server is located remotely from the vehicle or independent in terms of other parameters.
Claims 1-11 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 “sun position calculation unit, visually-unrecognizable region calculation unit, output unit, visually-unrecognizable region acquisition” 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 function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed functions of calculating position information, visual unrecognizable region outputting visual unrecognizable region. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform said function. The use of the terms “calculate, output, etc..” are not adequate structure for performing the change in operation because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. 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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of controlling the vehicles based on the received signals. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA (20220128377) in view of Yokota (2017/0098132) and further in view of SHEN (CN 113071414 A).
Regarding claim 1, FUJITA discloses a vehicle control device to be mounted on a vehicle (FIG. 1, “vehicle mounted device 20”), the vehicle control device comprising:
a sun position calculation unit configured to calculate position information of sun at a predetermined time (¶0060, “The solar position calculation section 305 calculates, for each of the stop lines, the position of the sun at the passage time of each of the stop lines based on the position of each stop line and the passage time of each stop line”);
FUJITA does not explicitly disclose but, Yokota teaches a visually-unrecognizable region calculation unit configured to calculate a visually-unrecognizable region in which it is difficult to visually recognize a visual recognition target object based on the position information of the sun and position information of the visual recognition target object (¶0042, “when a recognition target is recognized based on edge information of objects, recognition of edge information changes from a recognized state to an unrecognized state …during traveling, the recognition target becomes unrecognized when the position of the sun or the back-lit state changes”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the travel route system disclosed in FUJITA with detecting the unrecognized region taught in YOKOTA with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted providing higher accuracy in moving-object recognition.
FUJITA does not explicitly disclose but, SHEN teaches a visually-unrecognizable region output unit configured to output the visually-unrecognizable region calculated by the visually-unrecognizable region calculation unit (page 3, lines 33-35, page 4, line 1-4, “to display the visual blind area image of the driver on the display screen… controlling the display screen display of the external image of the picture and angle, so as to make the sun-shading aim at the same time; It also solves the visual blind area problem of the driver caused by the shading of the sun shield”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the travel route system disclosed in FUJITA with displaying the unrecognized region taught in SHEN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted improving the safety of driver by reducing the adverse effect of the sunshine to the driver.
Regarding claim 3, FUJITA discloses wherein the visually-unrecognizable region calculation unit sets a visual recognition target object surrounding region including a space around the visual recognition target object for a spatial region occupied by the visual recognition target object based on the position information of the visual recognition target object, and calculates the visually-unrecognizable region based on the position information of the sun and the visual recognition target object surrounding region (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, FUJITA discloses wherein the visually-unrecognizable region calculation unit acquires weather information of a region to which the visual recognition target object belongs at a predetermined time, and does not calculate the visually-unrecognizable region when it is determined based on the weather information that an influence caused by a backlight is small (¶0062, “the backlight margin value calculation section 307 calculates the backlight margin value, which increases with an increase in the distance between the sunlight and the traffic light. In the present disclosure, the backlight margin value takes a value in a range of 0 to 1. In this case, the closer the backlight margin value to 1, the longer the distance between the sunlight and the traffic light and the smaller the influence of the backlight. Whereas, the closer the backlight margin value to 0, the shorter the distance between the sunlight and the traffic light and the greater the influence of the backlight.”).
Regarding claim 5, FUJITA discloses wherein the visually-unrecognizable region calculation unit does not calculate the visually-unrecognizable region when it is determined that an obstacle that blocks a sunlight is present between the visual recognition target object and the sun based on the position information of the sun, the position information of the visual recognition target object, and map information (FIG. 12, ¶0099).
Regarding claim 6, FUJITA discloses wherein the sun position calculation unit calculates the position information of the sun at the predetermined time based on position information of the vehicle and time information (FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 7, FUJITA discloses wherein the vehicle control device includes the sun position calculation unit, the visually-unrecognizable region calculation unit, and the visually-unrecognizable region output unit, and the vehicle control device further includes: a visually-unrecognizable region acquisition unit configured to acquire information on the visually- unrecognizable region from the visually-unrecognizable region output unit; and a vehicle control information output unit configured to specify the visually-unrecognizable region on a path of the vehicle based on the acquired information on the visually-unrecognizable region and output control information of the vehicle based on the specified visually-unrecognizable region (FIG. 3 and FIG. 4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA (20220128377) in view of Yokota (2017/0098132) and further in view of SHEN (CN 113071414 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JEOAN (US 20200108841 A1).
Regarding claim 2, FUJITA does not explicitly disclose but, JEOAN teaches wherein the visually-unrecognizable region calculation unit calculates the visually-unrecognizable region based on height information of a position of a visual recognition subject in the vehicle that visually recognizes the visual recognition target object (¶0046).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the travel route system disclosed in FUJITA with determining the height taught in JEOAN with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted making effective use of a parking space and preventing damage to the bodywork of the vehicle.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA (20220128377) in view of Yokota (2017/0098132) and further in view of SHEN (CN 113071414 A) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of MITSUKI (JP 2008268992 A).
Regarding claim 8, FUJITA does not explicitly disclose but, MITSUKI teaches wherein the vehicle control information output unit outputs, as the control information of the vehicle, information for operating a vehicle internal device that blocks or reduces a sunlight for a visual recognition subject in the vehicle in the specified visually-unrecognizable region (¶0061, ¶0058).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the travel route system disclosed in FUJITA with adjusting a speed of the vehicle taught in MITSUKI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted avoiding the danger of poor visibility that may occur in the future.
Regarding claim 10, MITSUKI teaches wherein when the vehicle passes through the specified visually- unrecognizable region, the vehicle control information output unit outputs, as the control information of the vehicle, information for adjusting a speed of the vehicle such that a position of the vehicle at a time point at which the vehicle needs to visually recognize the visual recognition target object does not overlap the visually-unrecognizable region (¶0061, ¶0058).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the travel route system disclosed in FUJITA with adjusting a speed of the vehicle taught in MITSUKI with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted avoiding the danger of poor visibility that may occur in the future.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA (20220128377) in view of Yokota (2017/0098132) and further in view of SHEN (CN 113071414 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of WANG (CN 110626269 A).
Regarding claim 9, FUJITA does not explicitly disclose but, WANG teaches wherein when the vehicle stops in the specified visually- unrecognizable region, the vehicle control information output unit outputs, as the control information of the vehicle, information for stopping the vehicle in front of the visually-unrecognizable region or on an opposite side of the visually-unrecognizable region (page 13, lines 20-28).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the travel route system disclosed in FUJITA with stopping at a region taught in WANG with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted avoiding the danger of poor visibility that may occur in the future.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA (20220128377) in view of Yokota (2017/0098132), SHEN (CN 113071414 A), and further in view of Hayashi (US 20200026935).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 is rejected using the same art and rationale used to reject claim 1. Furthermore, Hayashi teaches a server device provided at a location independent of a vehicle (¶0040, “Some of the functions of the ECU 10 may be performed by a server capable of communicating with the host vehicle V.”).
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the travel route system disclosed in FUJITA with server taught in Hayashi with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have targeted efficiently perform the processing for recognizing the traffic signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. HIEIDA (US 20200079504 A1) discloses Provided is an environment map automatic creation device using a flying object. The environment map automatic creation device includes a travelable area extraction unit that extracts a travelable area where a vehicle can travel in a certain area based on three-dimensional shape information of an area for creating an environmental map, which is acquired by a sensor in a flying object, an area category determination unit that determines a category of the travelable area, a complementary portion determination unit that determines whether or not to measure a complementary portion which complements the travelable area based on the travelable area and the category, and a complementary measurement portion presentation unit that presents the complementary measurement portion (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDHWAN K MAWARI whose telephone number is (571)270-1535. The examiner can normally be reached mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at 571-272-5109. 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.
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667