CTNF 18/944,662 CTNF 95740 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. 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 limitations are: Imaging unit in claim 1, Object recognition unit in claim 1 and 3 Light distribution control unit in claim 1 Reliability threshold change unit in claim 1-2 Collision avoidance control unit in claim 3. The corresponding structure for the imaging unit is disclosed to be a camera in ¶[0014] while the other unit’s structure is disclosed to be a CPU in ¶[0025] of the instant application’s specification. 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 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-3 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. Regarding Claim 1, The term “a small” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim discloses changing the reliability threshold value to a smaller value but doesn’t explicitly disclose what is considered a smaller value which makes the claim indefinite as a smaller value doesn’t really have a set value. Regarding Claim 2, The term “a small value” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim discloses changing the reliability threshold value to a small value but doesn’t explicitly disclose what is considered a small value which makes the claim indefinite as a small value doesn’t really have a set value. Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1. 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. ("WO2020129522") in view of Sakamoto et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210019534 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Otsuka teaches an object recognition apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: an imaging unit (this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is disclosed to be a camera in ¶[0019] of the specification, the cited prior art discloses a camera in ¶[0014) for capturing an image of a predetermined area in front of a vehicle (¶[0014], In Figure 1, the vehicle control system (also the light distribution control system) 100 is equipped on the vehicle (sometimes referred to as the vehicle), and the camera (imaging device) 11 is installed in front of the vehicle and periodically captures images of a predetermined area in front of the vehicle in chronological order, and the image processing device 1 processes the images (captured images) captured by the camera 11, ¶[0014] discloses a vehicle system that includes a camera for capturing images in front of the vehicle.); a light distribution control unit (this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is disclosed to be an electronic control unit with a processor in ¶[0025] of the specification, the cited prior art discloses a CPU in ¶[0025) for controlling a light distribution of a headlamp in a light distribution pattern including an irradiation area for irradiating the irradiation light and a light control area for shielding or dimming the irradiation light by shielding or dimming a part of the irradiation light irradiated from the headlamp provided in the vehicle based on an existence information of the object exist in front of the vehicle; ([0027] “The central processing unit 3 of the image processing device 1 in this embodiment consists of an irradiation orientation information acquisition unit 17 that obtains information about the direction of the vehicle's headlights, an image acquisition unit 12 that acquires images from the camera 11, an image acquisition unit 12 that divides the image obtained by the image acquisition unit 12 into multiple pixel regions 41 and calculates the brightness of each pixel region 41, A light source area setting unit 14 that sets the luminance calculated by the luminance calculation unit 13 as a light source area 42 containing multiple adjacent pixel regions 41 whose luminance is at or above the set brightness (for example, a brightness capable of detecting headlights more than 600 meters away), It comprises a threshold determination unit 15 that determines a threshold for each light source area 42 based on the multiple light source regions 42 set by the light source area setting unit 14 and the headlight irradiation direction obtained by the irradiation direction acquisition unit 17, and a target object identification unit 16 that identifies the target object using the threshold determined by the threshold determination unit 15.” [0028], “The threshold determination unit 15 of the central processing unit 3 of the image processing device 1 in this embodiment detects when the headlight has switched from low beam to high beam based on irradiation direction information, and changes the threshold for identifying the target object by the object identification unit 16 to each light source region 42 in the light source area 42 set by the light source area setting unit 14.”, ¶[0027]-¶[0028] disclose controlling the headlights of the vehicle based on detecting an object within the line of sight of the vehicle. ) and a reliability threshold change unit (this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is disclosed to be an electronic control unit with a processor in ¶[0025] of the specification, the cited prior art discloses a CPU in ¶[0025) configured to changing, when the object in the image does not exist in the irradiation area, the reliability threshold value to a smaller value than when the target is present in the irradiation area. ([0028], The threshold determination unit 15 of the central processing unit 3 of the image processing device 1 in this embodiment detects when the headlight has switched from low beam to high beam based on irradiation direction information, and changes the threshold for identifying the target object by the object identification unit 16 to each light source region 42 in the light source area 42 set by the light source area setting unit 14 ., ¶[0028] discloses changing the threshold based on detecting an object in the light source region.) Otsuka does not explicitly teach an object recognition unit configured to calculate a reliability of an object recognition of an object in the image captured by the imaging unit, and recognizes the object as an object actually present when the calculated reliability is equal to or larger than a predetermined reliability threshold value; Sakamoto teaches an object recognition unit (this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is disclosed to be an electronic control unit with a processor in ¶[0025] of the specification, the cited prior art discloses a CPU in ¶[0038) configured to calculate a reliability of an object recognition of an object in the image captured by the imaging unit, and recognizes the object as an object actually present when the calculated reliability is equal to or larger than a predetermined reliability threshold value; (¶[0044], “The object detection and identification unit 102 receives the image data input by the sensor information acquisition process, and detects objects in the image. The object detection and identification unit 102 identifies the position, size, class, and likelihood of the detected object, and stores the identification result in the storage device 40 as an identification result information 46. The likelihood here is a parameter representing the degree of probability in the class for the detected object. The object, class, and likelihood identified by the object detection and identification unit 102 are hereinafter referred to as “identification target,” “identification class,” and “identification likelihood,” respectively. Typically, the identification likelihood can be represented by a numerical value between 0 and 1.”, ¶[0044] discloses receiving an image from the sensors of the vehicle and determining if an object is present by associating a likelihood score of 1 if the object is present or 0 if there is no object in the image.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Otsuka with Sakamoto in order to calculate a reliability of the object recognition when detecting an object in the image. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Otsuka in this manner in order for recognizing an object around a vehicle. (Sakamoto, ¶[0002]) 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. ("WO2020129522") in view of Sakamoto et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210019534 A1) in view of Allen et al. US Patent(US 5608207 A) . Regarding Claim 2, while the combination of Otsuka and Sakamoto teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1, they do not explicitly teach wherein the reliability threshold change unit is configured to changes the reliability threshold value to a small value by multiplying the reliability threshold value by a gain factor of 0 or more and less than 1, when the object in the image does not exist in the irradiation region. Allen teaches wherein the reliability threshold change unit (this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is disclosed to be an electronic control unit with a processor in ¶[0025] of the specification, the cited prior art discloses a microprocessor in Col 4, Lines 7-8) is configured to changes the reliability threshold value to a small value by multiplying the reliability threshold value by a gain factor of 0 or more and less than 1(Col 7, Lines 57-60, “In FIG. 8, the first step of the algorithmic process is the setting of a new gain variable equal to the previous gain multiplied by the ratio of the target value divided by the present input.” , discloses multiplying the gain by a ratio. Col 4 Lines 7-12, “ In FIG. 2, three lines are shown between the microprocessor 40 and the amplifier 64. These three lines, 71-73, allow the microprocessor to control the gain factor of the amplifier 64. The ability for the microprocessor 40 to control the gain factor of the amplifier 64 provides one of the significant advantages of the present invention” , disclose a microprocessor controlling the gain factor. ), when the object in the image does not exist in the irradiation region . (Col 4, Lines 19-27, “the microprocessor 40 senses the fact that the output signal on line 66 is not within appropriate limits, it can take the necessary action to change the gain factor of the amplifier 64 and thereby change the magnitude of the output signal on line 66. Through the normal operation of the electronics 44, this will effectively change the magnitude of the digital signal on line 54 that is used by the microprocessor to determine the presence or absence of an object, such as that represented by reference numeral 11 in FIG. 2, within the detection zone.”, discloses determining if an object is present or absent when adjusting the threshold.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Otsuka and Sakamoto with Allen in order to multiply a gain factor when an object is not detected. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Otsuka and Sakamoto in this manner in order to a sensor for detecting the presence of an object and, more particularly, to a sensor which comprises an amplifier and a means for dynamically changing the gain of the amplifier in response to changing conditions. (Allen Col 1, Lines 7-12) 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka et al. ("WO2020129522") in view of Sakamoto et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210019534 A1) in view of Takaki US PG-Pub(US 20190315349 A1) . Regarding Claim 3, while the combination of Otsuka and Sakamoto teach the vehicle control device according to claim 1, they do not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle comprising a collision avoidance control unit configured to execute a collision avoidance control for avoiding a collision between the vehicle and the object or reducing the damage of the collision when the object recognized in front of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined collision condition; and wherein the object recognition unit causes the collision avoidance control unit to recognize the object by transmitting an information of the recognized object to the collision avoidance control unit. Takaki teaches wherein the vehicle comprising a collision avoidance control unit (this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is disclosed to be an electronic control unit with a processor in ¶[0025] of the specification, the cited prior art discloses a CPU in ¶[0024]) configured to execute a collision avoidance control for avoiding a collision between the vehicle and the object or reducing the damage of the collision when the object recognized in front of the vehicle satisfies a predetermined collision condition ([0025], “ The estimating unit 110 estimates the likelihood of collision between the own vehicle 500 and an object that is detected by the object detection sensor 20. The recognizing unit 111 recognizes a result of a determination by the object regarding the likelihood of collision between the object and the own vehicle 500. The operation changing unit 112 changes an operation that is performed to avoid colliding with the object, when the likelihood of collision estimated by the estimating unit 110 and the likelihood of collision recognized by the recognizing unit 111 meet a predetermined condition .”, ¶[0025] discloses determining if a collision between vehicles will occur and attempting to avoid the collision.); and wherein the object recognition unit (this unit is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure is disclosed to be an electronic control unit with a processor in ¶[0025] of the specification, the cited prior art discloses a CPU in ¶[0024]) causes the collision avoidance control unit to recognize the object by transmitting an information of the recognized object to the collision avoidance control unit. [0076], According to the above-described embodiments, the hazard lamps 40 are applied as the notifying unit. The recognizing unit 111 recognizes the second collision likelihood determined in the other vehicle 600 based on the blinking state of the hazard lamps 40. However, the second collision likelihood may be transmitted by an apparatus other than the hazard lamps 40. For example, the communication apparatus 28 may be applied as the notifying unit. The second collision likelihood determined by the collision determination apparatus 100 provided in the other vehicle 600 may be transmitted to the own vehicle 500 through inter-vehicle communication using the communication apparatus 28”, ¶[0078] discloses transmitting a notification when there is a potential collision.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Otsuka and Sakamoto with Takaki in order to estimate and notify when a collision might occur. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Otsuka and Sakamoto in this manner in order to estimate and determine a collision between vehicles. (Takaki, Abstract) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, JOHN M VILLECCO can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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. /HAN HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 2 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 3 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 4 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 5 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 6 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 7 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 8 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 9 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 10 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 11 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 12 Art Unit: 2661 Application/Control Number: 18/944,662 Page 13 Art Unit: 2661
Prosecution Insights