DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
2. This application, filed October 7, 2024, is a continuation of PCT/JP2023/015378, filed April 17, 2023. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Specification
3. 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. In particular, the title is not sufficiently specific.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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 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.
5. 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:
“detection unit” in claims 1, 2, and 3;
“transmission unit” in claims 1, 2, and 3;
“storage unit” in claims 1and 2;
“communication unit” in claim 3;
“control unit” in claims 3 and 15.
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
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
In particular, the claim limitation, “detection unit” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but 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. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed detection function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1-3 are indefinite.
In particular, the claim limitation, “transmission unit” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but 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. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed transmission function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1-3 are indefinite.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
In particular, the claim limitation, “storage unit” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but 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. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed storage function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1-3 are indefinite.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
In particular, the claim limitation, “communication unit” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but 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. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed communication function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1-3 are indefinite.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not descried in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed detection function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not descried in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed transmission function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not descried in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed storage function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not descried in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at the time the application was filed, the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed communication function. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiko et al. (US 2022/0004778 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishiko discloses:
an abnormality detection system detecting an abnormality in a vehicle cabin ([0059]; FIG. 1: 10), the abnormality detection system comprising:
a cloud collecting data of a vehicle ([0060]; FIG. 1: 14);
an on-board device communicatively connected to the cloud ([0083]; FIG. 5: 64); and
a plurality of applications each configured to detect the abnormality as a target based on image data of an image captured by a camera ([0067], [0068], [0113]; FIG. 2: 28, 32; FIG. 8: 106, 108; FIG. 9: 110),
the camera capturing the image indicating an interior of the vehicle cabin ([0067], [0068]),
a detection unit analyzing the image data and detecting the abnormality when each of the plurality of applications is executed ([0112]; FIG. 9: 110); and
a transmission unit transmitting, to the cloud, an analysis result analyzed by the detection unit and transmitting, to the cloud, at least the image data from which the abnormality is detected ([0061], [0098]; FIG. 1: 14, 16; FIG. 7: 94),
Ishiko does not disclose that the on-board device includes the foregoing detection unit or transmission unit, but Ishiko does disclose those units (see above), and Ishiko does disclose that the configurations of each control device, the processing server, and the like described in the embodiment of the Ishiko specification are examples, and may be changed depending on the situation without departing from the spirit of the disclosure ([0192]); moreover, the claimed system constitutes mere rearrangement of the parts of the Ishiko system, and mere rearrangement of parts requires only routine skill in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application for the benefit of eliminating the cost of remote devices, avoiding complications and errors involved in transmission of data to a remote server, reducing the time needed to process data, and simplifying communication between the vehicle and the cloud;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Ishiko in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system to eliminate the cost of remote devices, avoid complications and errors involved in transmission of data to a remote server, reduce the time needed to process data, and simplify communication between the vehicle and the cloud;
the cloud includes a storage unit that stores the analysis result and the image data, which are transmitted from the transmission unit ([0087], [0090]; FIG. 6: 76), and
at least one of the on-board device or the cloud notifies a notification target of the analysis result ([0122]).
Regarding claim 3, Ishiko discloses:
an abnormality detection system detecting an abnormality in a vehicle cabin ([0059]; FIG. 1: 10), the abnormality detection system comprising:
a cloud collecting data of a vehicle ([0060]; FIG. 1: 14); and
an on-board device communicatively connected to the cloud and communicatively connected to a relay device that relays a frame communicated through a network of the vehicle ([0083], [0091], [0092]; FIG. 1; FIG. 5: 64),
wherein the on-board device includes: an on-board communication unit communicating with an electronic control unit connected to the network of the vehicle via the relay device ([0080]; FIG. 5: 56, 64);
a detection unit analyzing image data of an image captured by a camera and detecting the abnormality in the vehicle cabin ([0112]; FIG. 9: 110), the camera capturing the image indicating an interior of the vehicle cabin ([0067], [0068]); and
a transmission unit transmitting, to the cloud, an analysis result analyzed by the detection unit and transmitting, to the cloud, at least the image data from which the abnormality is detected ([0061], [0098]; FIG. 1: 14, 16; FIG. 7: 94),
Ishiko does not disclose that the on-board device includes the foregoing detection unit or transmission unit, but Ishiko does disclose those units (see above), and Ishiko does disclose that the configurations of each control device, the processing server, and the like described in the embodiment of the Ishiko specification are examples, and may be changed depending on the situation without departing from the spirit of the disclosure ([0192]); moreover, the claimed system constitutes mere rearrangement of the parts of the Ishiko system, and rearrangement of parts requires only routine skill in the art and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application for the benefit of eliminating the cost of remote devices, avoiding complications and errors involved in transmission of data to a remote server, reducing the time needed to process data, and simplifying communication between the vehicle and the cloud;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Ishiko in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system to eliminate the cost of remote devices, avoid complications and errors involved in transmission of data to a remote server, reduce the time needed to process data, and simplify communication between the vehicle and the cloud;
and the analysis result analyzed by the detection unit is notified toward outside of the vehicle ([0122]).
Regarding claim 4, Ishiko discloses that the abnormality is related to a seat of the vehicle, and includes at least dirt of the seat or a left-behind object on the seat. ([0072], [0075], [0099], [0113]; Ishiko discloses that cameras capture images of both the front and rear seats, and the images are used to detect the presence of dirt or a left-behind object.)
Regarding claim 7, Ishiko discloses that the abnormality is detected based on a difference between pre-image data, which is obtained from the camera when the camera captures the image of the interior of the vehicle cabin before a user enters the vehicle, and post-image data, which is obtained from the camera when the camera captures the image of the interior of the vehicle cabin after the user exits the vehicle. ([0113])
Regarding claim 9, Ishiko discloses that the abnormality is dirt or a left-behind object in the vehicle cabin. ([0113])
Regarding clam 10, Ishiko discloses that in response to receiving, from an outside device, an instruction for capturing the image of the vehicle cabin, the camera captures the image of the vehicle cabin and the abnormality is detected based on the image data of the image captured by the camera. ([0082], [0139], [0143])
Regarding claim 11, Ishiko does not explicitly disclose that the on-board device is connected to a vehicle battery, and the on-board device turns off the camera and turns off the on-board device itself when an ignition of the vehicle is turned off, but Ishiko does disclose that the on-board device it an electronic device that is installed in a vehicle ([0079]; FIG. 5), which suggests that the on-board device is connected to the vehicle battery for the benefit of providing the on-board device with a source of electrical energy that would enable the on-board device to operate. Ishiko further discloses that once the vehicle is turned off, the on-board device operates the cameras only after receiving an external signal ([00139], [0143], which suggests that the on-board device turns off the cameras when an ignition of the vehicle is turned off for the benefit of saving energy when the cameras are not in use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the on-board device of Ishika in the foregoing manner because that would have provided the on-board device with a source of electrical energy that would enable the on-board device to operate and because that would save energy when the cameras are not in use.
Regarding claim 12, Ishiko does not explicitly disclose that when the abnormality is detected after the ignition of the vehicle is turned off, the camera and the on-board device are not turned off until the analysis result is notified toward outside of the vehicle, but Ishiko does disclose the operation of the cameras to detect an abnormality after the ignition of the vehicle is turned off ([0125]; FIG. 12), and Ishiko does disclose that the process to detect an abnormality does not end until after image information has been transmitted to the cloud server ([0145], [0156]), and a CPU determines a range or a degree of dirt is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold and ends the detection process ([0156]); all of which suggests that in the system of Ishiko, when the abnormality is detected after the ignition of the vehicle is turned off, the camera and the on-board device are not turned off until the analysis result is notified toward outside of the vehicle for the benefit that the cameras are not turned off until after a determination that a range or a degree of dirt is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have configured the system of Ishiko in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the system not to turn off the cameras until after a determination that a rang or a degree of dirt is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold.
Regarding claim 13, Ishiko discloses a method ([0053]; Ishiko discloses a flow of processing, which is equivalent to a method); otherwise, claim 13 is rejected as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Ishiko discloses a method ([0053]; Ishiko discloses a flow of processing, which is equivalent to a method); otherwise, claim 15 is rejected as claim 3.
12. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiko in view of Schmalenberg et al. (US 2022/0250589 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ishiko does not disclose that the camera is an infrared camera.
Schmalenberg, in the same field of abnormality detection systems for detecting an abnormality in a vehicle cabin, teaches an autonomous cleaning system for vehicle interiors that incorporates passenger feedback and adjustable ground truth ([0001]), wherein the system comprises an infrared camera ([0050]) for the benefit of using light of a wavelength that has shown utility for imaging stains and for showing contrast between differing materials that may, to the human eye under visible light, appear to be the same color ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Schmalenberg with the system of Ishiko because that would have enabled the system to use light of a wavelength that has shown utility for imaging stains and for showing contrast between differing materials that may, to the human eye under visible light, appear to be the same color.
13. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishiko in view of Ventimiglia et al. (US 2021/10190516 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ishiko does not disclose that when the camera captures the image of a target, the camera is configured to emit a light that illuminates the target to be captured by the camera.
Ventimiglia, in the same field of detection systems for detecting an abnormality in a vehicle cabin, teaches an in-vehicle sensing module ([0003]), wherein LEDs are operated by a processor in the system to illuminate the cabin of the vehicle ([0043]) for the benefit that the camera can capture an image of sufficient quality ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Ventimiglia with the system of Ishiko because that would have enabled the system to enable a camera can capture an image of sufficient quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claim 2 is allowed.
Claim 8 is 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 14 is allowed.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689