CTNF 18/925,403 CTNF 88374 DETAILED ACTION 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 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: acquisition unit, determining unit, and estimation unit 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: The acquisition unit corresponds to Fig. 2 & pg. 6 acquisition unit 11, determining unit corresponds to Fig. 2 & pg. 6 determining unit 12, and estimation unit corresponds to Fig. 2 & pg. 6-7 estimation unit 13. Pg. 7 further discloses “FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing an example of the hardware configuration of the information processing apparatus 10 according to the embodiment. In the example of FIG. 3, the information processing apparatus 10 includes a processor 101, a memory 102 and a communication interface 103. These may be connected by a bus. The memory 102 stores at least a part of program 104. The communication interface 103 includes an interface necessary for communication with other network elements.”. 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 § 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 9 covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) and embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, the Specification on pg. 8 wherein “the computer-readable medium or tangible storage medium may include random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), flash memory, solid-state drive (SSD) or other memory technologies, CD-ROM, digital versatile disc (DVD), Blu-ray® disc or other optical disc storage, magnetic cassette, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices. The program may be transmitted on a transitory computer-readable medium or communication medium. By way of example and not limitation, the transitory computer-readable medium or communication medium may include electrical, optical, acoustical, or other forms of propagated signals...” given the broadest reasonable interpretation does not exclude a signal. Thus, the claims are not eligible subject matter. It is recommended to amend and narrow the claims to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non- transitory" to the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kondo et al (US 20030137517) . Regarding claim 1, Kondo discloses an information processing apparatus (Fig. 1 image processing apparatus 15A) comprising: an acquisition unit for acquiring each image captured at each point in time by a capturing device mounted on a moving object (¶61 To the image processing apparatus 15A, an image signal of an image photographed from a moving point, for example, an image signal SDC of the moving image obtained by photographing the front with a car-mounted camera is inputted; the image processing apparatus 15A generates peripheral image signals SDL and SDR of side moving images corresponding to the front moving image UC, i.e., moving images in the peripheral area adjoining to the range of the visual field (range of angle of view) of the car-mounted camera, for example, peripheral image signals of left and right side moving images based on the image signal SDC of the front moving image UC which is a reference moving image) ; a determination unit for determining the type of movement of the moving object based on each of the images (¶122 The layer classification unit 46 identifies the moving pattern of the front moving image based on the moving vector MVE of each motion detection area, and performs layer setting for generating the intermediate image information; see further claim 14: a motion type detection means for detecting the type of the motion of the image of the objective frame based on the directions of motions of the plurality of said prescribed areas provided in said objective frame) ; and an estimation unit for estimating the amount (¶63 calculates the moving amount MV of the image in each motion detection area AR, and supplies it to a layering processing block 22; ¶69 The motion detection block 20 identifies the moving amount MV of the image for every motion detection area as described above) and direction of movement of the moving object from a first point in time when a first image was captured to a second point in time when a second image was captured based on the first image and the second image captured at a time interval corresponding to the type of movement from the first image (¶122 Herein, the front moving image when the front moving image has been photographed by a car-mounted camera becomes the image obtained by sequentially zooming in the front moving image when the car moves straight ahead in one direction. Whereas, it becomes the image obtained by sequentially zooming out the front moving image when the car moves backward. Further, when a passing vehicle has been photographed, the passing vehicle is displayed as a zoomed-out image on the zoomed-in image. Further, when the car makes a right turn or a left turn, for example, the top side of the front moving image is moved in the horizontal direction, and a zoomed-in image appears on the bottom side. Therefore, the layer classification unit 46 identifies the moving pattern of the front moving image based on the moving vector MVE of each motion detection area, and performs layer setting based on the identified moving pattern) . Regarding claim(s) 8 (drawn to a method): The rejection/proposed combination of Kondo, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim(s) 1, anticipates/renders obvious the steps of the method of claim(s) 8 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim(s) 1 is/are equally applicable to claim(s) 8. Regarding claim(s) 9 (drawn to a CRM): The rejection/proposed combination of Kondo, explained in the rejection of apparatus claim(s) 1, anticipates/renders obvious the steps of the computer readable medium of claim(s) 9 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim(s) 1 is/are equally applicable to claim(s) 9. See further Kondo ¶188-189 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Herbon et al (US Patent 10949681 B2) . Regarding claim 2, Kondo discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach where Herbon teaches wherein the type of movement includes at least one of the moving speeds of the moving object (col 2 lines 39-45 the input signal may be used in the step of determining to determine the time difference value as a function of a roll rate of the vehicle or, in addition or as an alternative, of a relative speed between the vehicle and at least one further vehicle) , the curvature of the moving direction of the moving object (col 5 lines 50-62 The smaller the time interval, the higher is the likelihood that objects having a high proper speed are detected; when negotiating a tight curve or driving on an uneven ground surface) , and the change in gradient of the moving direction of the moving object (col 2 lines 27-35 it is possible, in the step of determining, to determine the time difference value by reducing an output value when the input signal represents an identified automatic emergency brake application of the vehicle or, in addition or as an alternative, a pitch rate of the vehicle exceeding a threshold value. In this way, the loss of the optical flow may be prevented in highly dynamic driving situations) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein the type of movement includes at least one of the moving speeds of the moving object, the curvature of the moving direction of the moving object, and the change in gradient of the moving direction of the moving object from Herbon into the information processing apparatus as disclosed by Kondo. The motivation for doing this is to improve ascertaining an optical flow and further to prevent a loss of the optical flow. Regarding claim 3, Kondo discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach where Herbon teaches wherein the estimation unit determines the time interval longer as the moving speed of the moving object is slower (col 2 lines 39-45 the input signal may be used in the step of determining to determine the time difference value as a function of a roll rate of the vehicle or, in addition or as an alternative, of a relative speed between the vehicle and at least one further; col 5 lines 37-62 The greater the time interval becomes, the greater is the movement in the image, but the more difficult is also the assignment of corresponding image points.; The smaller the time interval, the higher is the likelihood that objects having a high proper speed are detected; In highly dynamic driving scenarios, such as during a hard brake application, when negotiating a tight curve or driving on an uneven ground surface, device 102 advantageously selects a shorter time interval)) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein the estimation unit determines the time interval longer as the moving speed of the moving object is slower from Herbon into the information processing apparatus as disclosed by Kondo. The motivation for doing this is to improve ascertaining an optical flow and further to prevent a loss of the optical flow. Regarding claim 4, Kondo discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach where Herbon teaches wherein the estimation unit determines the time interval longer as the curvature of the moving direction of the moving object is smaller (col 2 lines 39-45 the input signal may be used in the step of determining to determine the time difference value as a function of a roll rate of the vehicle or, in addition or as an alternative, of a relative speed between the vehicle and at least one further; col 5 lines 37-62 The greater the time interval becomes, the greater is the movement in the image, but the more difficult is also the assignment of corresponding image points.; The smaller the time interval, the higher is the likelihood that objects having a high proper speed are detected; In highly dynamic driving scenarios, such as during a hard brake application, when negotiating a tight curve or driving on an uneven ground surface, device 102 advantageously selects a shorter time interval)) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein the estimation unit determines the time interval longer as the curvature of the moving direction of the moving object is smaller from Herbon into the information processing apparatus as disclosed by Kondo. The motivation for doing this is to improve ascertaining an optical flow and further to prevent a loss of the optical flow. Regarding claim 5, Kondo discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the estimation unit determines the time interval longer as the change in gradient of the moving direction of the moving object is smaller (col 2 lines 39-45 the input signal may be used in the step of determining to determine the time difference value as a function of a roll rate of the vehicle or, in addition or as an alternative, of a relative speed between the vehicle and at least one further; col 5 lines 37-62 The greater the time interval becomes, the greater is the movement in the image, but the more difficult is also the assignment of corresponding image points.; The smaller the time interval, the higher is the likelihood that objects having a high proper speed are detected; In highly dynamic driving scenarios, such as during a hard brake application, when negotiating a tight curve or driving on an uneven ground surface, device 102 advantageously selects a shorter time interval)) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein the estimation unit determines the time interval longer as the change in gradient of the moving direction of the moving object is smaller from Herbon into the information processing apparatus as disclosed by Kondo. The motivation for doing this is to improve ascertaining an optical flow and further to prevent a loss of the optical flow . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shreve et al (US 20150310606) . Regarding claim 6, Kondo discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach where Shreve teaches wherein the determination unit calculates optical flow based on each of the images and determines the type of movement based on the optical flow (¶55 when using optical flow, pixel displacements within the ROI may be summed to generate both the general direction of motion as well the magnitude; For example, it may be possible to determine if a condiment pump is being pressed, or if a part of the customer's body moved in the region) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein the determination unit calculates optical flow based on each of the images and determines the type of movement based on the optical flow from Shreve into the information processing apparatus as disclosed by Kondo. The motivation for doing this is to improve monitoring of an environment. Regarding claim 7, Kondo discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to teach where Shreve teachers wherein the acquisition unit acquires each of the images captured by the capturing device at a specific frame rate (¶37 the camera 104 used in the present disclosure is suitably operative to capture video at a frame rate that is able (sufficiently high enough, e.g., 30 frames/sec) to handle one or more subjects moving through the scene at anticipated speeds) , and the estimation unit extracts the first image and the second image from the images (¶72 In the next step 504, the image data 130 from a camera 104 is obtained by the event detection device 102, e.g., frame-by-frame or at some other suitable interval) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have implemented the teaching of wherein the acquisition unit acquires each of the images captured by the capturing device at a specific frame rate, and the estimation unit extracts the first image and the second image from the images from Shreve into the information processing apparatus as disclosed by Kondo. The motivation for doing this is to improve monitoring of an environment. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN KY whose telephone number is (571)272-7648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM. 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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. /KEVIN KY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/925,403 Page 2 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/925,403 Page 3 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/925,403 Page 4 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/925,403 Page 5 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/925,403 Page 6 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/925,403 Page 7 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/925,403 Page 8 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/925,403 Page 9 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/925,403 Page 10 Art Unit: 2671
Prosecution Insights