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: “an interface” in claim 1.
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 Objections
Claims 6-7, are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 6, line 1, recites “a plurality of MVIDMRs”, however should recite “the plurality of MVIDMRs”. Claim 7 objected based on its dependency on the objected claim and inherent the same objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18-19, are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 18, line 1, recites “a plurality of MVIDMRs”, however should recite “the plurality of MVIDMRs”. Claim 19 objected based on its dependency on the objected claim and inherent the same objection. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-14, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould (US PGPUB 2022/0294994 A1) and further in view of Huang (US PGPUB 2021/0004610 A1).
As per claim 1, Gould discloses a method (Gould, Fig. 1A-3), comprising:
receiving vehicle tunnel configuration information for a vehicle tunnel, the vehicle tunnel including a vehicle tunnel entrance area, a vehicle tunnel midsection, and a vehicle tunnel exit area, each configured to accommodate a vehicle passing through the vehicle tunnel (Gould, Figs. 1A-1C, shows tunnel entrance, midsection and exit area and also please see paragraphs 10-11, 39, 49, and 56-57);
receiving uniform lighting pattern panel information, the uniform lighting pattern panel information identifying placement of a plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels in the vehicle tunnel (Gould, paragraphs 10 and 41-42);
receiving striped lighting pattern panel information, the striped lighting pattern panel information identifying placement of a plurality of striped lighting pattern panels in the vehicle tunnel (Gould, paragraphs 53 and 56);
receiving a proposed camera configuration, the proposed camera configuration identifying a camera location and a camera angle for each of a plurality of cameras in the vehicle tunnel (Gould, paragraphs 10-11, 27, 29, 39, 49, and 56-59); and
analyzing the vehicle tunnel configuration information, the uniform lighting pattern panel information, the striped lighting pattern panel information, and the proposed camera configuration using a processor to generate a camera configuration (score) corresponding to an effectiveness of the proposed camera configuration in capturing images for detecting vehicle imperfections (Gould, Fig. 2:10:42, and paragraphs 10-11, 27, 29, 36, 39, 49, and 56-59).
Although Gould discloses The controller 42 can be arranged to trigger some of all of cameras 26, 30, FC1, FC2, RC1, RC2 in response to criteria such as input from one or more sensors 48 and/or temporal conditions having been met (paragraph 58), and also discloses adjustment to camera settings (paragraph 59), however does not explicitly disclose a camera configuration score corresponding to an effectiveness of the proposed camera configuration in capturing images, said limitation would have been obvious in view of Gould teachings. Further, said limitation is well known in the art for instance Huang discloses a camera configuration score corresponding to an effectiveness of the proposed camera configuration in capturing images (Huang, paragraphs 127, 129 and 246, and also please see claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gould teachings by configuring a camera, as taught by Huang.
The motivation would be to improve detection accuracy in captured images (paragraph 160), as taught by Huang.
As per claim 2, Gould in view of Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the proposed camera configuration information further identifies a camera focal length (Huang, paragraph 137), a camera field of view, and a camera shutter speed (Gould, paragraphs 28, 45, and 49).
As per claim 8, Gould in view of Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein images captured by the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels are used to detect damage to a first component of the vehicle (Gould, paragraphs 45-46).
As per claim 9, Gould in view of Huang further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein images captured by the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels are used to analyze the extent of damage to the first component of the vehicle (Gould, paragraphs 10, and 45-46).
As per claim 10, Gould in view of Huang further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein capture of additional images by the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels is triggered if damage is detected by images captured using the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels (Gould, paragraph 42, obvious variation to capture additional images when trigger criteria met).
As per claim 11, Gould in view of Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of striped lighting pattern panels are striped lighting pattern filters (Gould, paragraphs 41-42).
As per claim 12, Gould in view of Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels are uniform lighting pattern diffusers (Gould, paragraphs 10 and 15).
As per claim 13, Gould in view of Huang discloses all the claim limitations as being discussed in claim 1. Further, Huang also discloses an interface (Huang, paragraphs 61 and 71).
As per claim 14, please see the analysis of claim 2.
As per claim 20, please see the analysis of claim 8.
Claim(s) 3-7, and 15-19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould (US PGPUB 2022/0294994 A1) and further in view of Huang (US PGPUB 2021/0004610 A1) and further in view of Hozler (US PGPUB 2021/0312702 A1).
As per claim 3, Gould in view of Huang further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Gould in view of Huang does not explicitly disclose images captured by the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels are used to generate a Multiview Interactive Digital Media Representation (MVIDMR).
Hozler discloses images captured by the plurality of uniform lighting pattern panels are used to generate a Multiview Interactive Digital Media Representation (MVIDMR) (Hozler, paragraph 240).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gould in view of Huang teachings by implementing image representation technique to the system, as taught by Hozler.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for automatic detection of damage based on multi-view data (paragraph 3), as taught by Hozler.
As per claim 4, Gould in view of Huang in view of Hozler further discloses the method of claim 3, wherein a plurality of MVIDMRs are generated for a plurality of different components of the vehicle (Hozler, paragraphs 238-240).
As per claim 5, Gould in view of Huang in view of Hozler further discloses the method of claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of MVIDMRs is user navigable along at least two different axes (Hozler, paragraphs 63 and 267).
As per claim 6, Gould in view of Huang in view of Hozler further discloses the method of claim 5, wherein a plurality of MVIDMRs are generated for a plurality of vehicle components including damaged components (Hozler, paragraphs 51 and 268).
As per claim 7, Gould in view of Huang in view of Hozler further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the damaged components are navigable along at least two different axes (Hozler, paragraphs 63 and 267).
As per claim 15, please see the analysis of claim 3.
As per claim 16, please see the analysis of claim 4.
As per claim 17, please see the analysis of claim 5.
As per claim 18, please see the analysis of claim 6.
As per claim 19, please see the analysis of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights