CTNF 18/878,898 CTNF 83615 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. generic placeholder coupled with functional language Corresponding structural support from specification “image saving unit …” Fig. 5 el. 160 “calibration check unit …” Fig. 5 el. 130 “parallelization unit …” Fig. 5 el. 131 “parallax estimation unit …” Fig. 5 el. 132 “deviation detection unit …” Fig. 5 el.133 “distance estimation unit …” Fig. 5 el. 150 “communication unit …” Fig. 4 el. 13 “output unit …” Fig. 4 Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-23 Claim limitations “calibration check unit …”, “parallelization unit …”, “parallax estimation unit …”, “deviation detection unit …”, “distance estimation unit ..”, “communication unit …” and “output unit …” invokes 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 disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in claims 1-14. 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 3 recites the limitation " the guidance information " in claim 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim relates to a computer program without any structural recitations (See MPEP 2106.03(I) note non-limiting examples including computer programs per se). Particularly the claim recites “A program for causing a computer to execute processing”. The claim does not recite any structure in which the program is stored or any structure of the computing device used to execute the program and hence lacks the necessary structure required to fall under one of the four statutory categories. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite a program stored on non-transitory computer readable media which causes a processor in a computer to execute the program. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,992,921 B1) in view of Eshima et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0288401 A1) . As per claim 1 , Cui teaches a mobile body (abstract) comprising: a stereo camera (fig 1A, fig. 2 el. 240-1 – 240-n); an image saving unit (fig. col. 8 lines 28-31) that saves a deviation detection image in which a calibration deviation is detected in a first calibration check of the stereo camera executed during movement of the mobile body (fig. 3 el. 310-370; col. 18 lines 43-46; col 20 lines 1-10); a calibration check that uses the deviation image to which a calibration parameter obtained by calibration of the stereo camera is applied (fig. 3 el. 380; col. 20 lines 7-20). Cui does not explicitly disclose a calibration check unit that uses the deviation detection image to execute a second calibration check to which a calibration parameter obtained by calibration of the stereo camera is applied, as recited in claim 1. However, Eshima teaches a calibration check unit (fig. 2 el. 40), that uses the deviation image to execute a second calibration check to which a calibration parameter obtained calibration of the stereo camera is applied (fig. 5, fig. 6; and [0079-0081], [0084], [0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Eshima with Cui for the benefit of providing improved camera calibration. As per claim 15 , which is the corresponding calibration method with the limitations of the mobile body as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here. As per claim 16 , which is the corresponding program with the limitations of the mobile body as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al., (U.S. Pat. No.10992921) in view of Eshima et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0288401 A1) and further in view of Hagenburg et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0283656 A1) . As per claim 2, Cui (modified by Eshima) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Cui does not explicitly disclose the calibration check generates guide information for requestion recalibration in a case wherein the calibration for deviation is detected in the second calibration check. However, Hagenburg teaches the calibration check generates guide information for requestion recalibration in a case wherein the calibration for deviation is detected in the second calibration check (abstract, [0083-0086] and fig.5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hagenburg with Cui (modified by Eshima) for the benefit to provide calibration that is repeated while presenting information on the measures in the order of a low burden on the user, abstract. As per claim 13 , Although Cui (modified by Eshima) discloses a communication unit (fig. 2) that transmits information to a controller that controls the mobile body (fig. 2), Cui (modified by Eshima) does not explicitly disclose to transmits presentation information regarding a result of the first calibration check or the second calibration check to a controller that controls the mobile body. However, Hagenburg teaches communication unit that transmits presentation information regarding a result of the first calibration check or the second calibration check to a controller that controls the mobile body (fig. 5, abstract, and [0083-0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hagenburg with Cui (modified by Eshima) for the benefit to provide calibration that is repeated while presenting information on the measures in the order of a low burden on the user, abstract. As per claim 14 , Cui (modified by Eshima) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Although Cui (modified by Eshima) teaches an output unit (Eshima; [0191], fig. 15), Cui (modified by Eshima) does not explicitly disclose to present information regarding a result of the first calibration check or the second calibration check. However, Hagenburg teaches to present information regarding a result of the first calibration check or the second calibration check (abstract, fig. 5 and [0083-0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hagenburg with Cui (modified by Eshima) for the benefit to provide calibration that is repeated while presenting information on the measures in the order of a low burden on the user, abstract . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 AIA Claim s 3-12 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Devitt et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 11270467 B2); “System and Method for Camera Calibration” Rowell et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0158813 A1); “Real Time Re-Calibration of Stereo Camera” Pele et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0398780 A1), “Autonomous Stereo Camera Calibration” Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M.. 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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. JESSICA PRINCE Examiner Art Unit 2486 /JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/878,898 Page 2 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/878,898 Page 3 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/878,898 Page 4 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/878,898 Page 5 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/878,898 Page 6 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/878,898 Page 7 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/878,898 Page 8 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/878,898 Page 9 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 18/878,898 Page 10 Art Unit: 2486
Prosecution Insights