DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2 would be allowable if (#1) rewritten to overcome all pending objection(s) and all pending rejection(s) set forth in this Office action; and (#2) rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Priority Status
Foreign priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are examined in this office 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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 3 do/does not follow the common practice of separating a preamble with a colon from a claim body. The Examiner requests the preamble with a colon be line indented from the claim body to overcome this claim objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(B) or (pre-AIA ) Second Paragraph
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is a product claim (i.e., driving assistance device) which is typically a physical thing; however, there are no physical features/characteristics recited in said product claim. According MPEP § 2171, Requirement (B) states, “the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.” As a general rule, when a parent claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(B) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) so too are any dependent claims following the dependency tree. In this case, Claim 2 is also rejected based on dependency.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites an indefinite limitation, “be able to make” in line 4 which is interpreted as “can make”. The verb “can” leans to a possibility which further leads to questioning if 50% of the time there’s a possibility the method step might or might not happen. The “be able to” is indefinite with respect to whether a key step is active or not. According MPEP § 2171, Requirement (B) states, “the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.” Furthermore, The Examiner notes the action of the method step is not positively recited. The Examiner suggests deleting “be able to” to overcome the rejection which positively recites the method step of “make”. As a general rule, when a parent claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(B) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) so too are any dependent claims following the dependency tree. In this case, Claim 2 is also rejected based on dependency.
Lastly, Claim 1 recites a pronoun “it” in line 7. Because this claim is identified as allowable subject matter, the claim must be clear on the metes and bounds of what is referred as “it” in a patent. According MPEP § 2171, Requirement (B) states, “the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.”
Claim 2 recites a pronoun “it” in line 2. Because this claim is identified as allowable subject matter, the claim must be clear on the metes and bounds of what is referred as “it” in a patent. According MPEP § 2171, Requirement (B) states, “the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.”
Claim 3 recites an indefinite limitation, “wherein it is possible to” in line 3. This issue contains the same discrepancy as Claim 1’s “be able to” language and rejected for the same rationale. The Examiner suggests deleted “wherein it is possible to” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 3 recites a pronoun “it” in line 6. Because this claim is identified as allowable subject matter, the claim must be clear on the metes and bounds of what is referred as “it” in a patent. According MPEP § 2171, Requirement (B) states, “the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.”
Claim 4 recites a pronoun “it” in line 8. Because this claim is identified as allowable subject matter, the claim must be clear on the metes and bounds of what is referred as “it” in a patent. According MPEP § 2171, Requirement (B) states, “the claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160305785 A1 (“Nishijima”).
As to Claim 1, Nishijima discloses A driving assistance device (e.g., “road surface detection device”) that performs driving assistance for a vehicle when a predetermined target (e.g., “travel path”) exists in a driving assistance area that is set ahead of the vehicle (see at least Abstract – “A road surface detection device that detects a road surface region based on disparity information obtained from a captured image of an area around a vehicle that is captured by an onboard camera, includes a path estimating portion that estimates a travel path where the vehicle will travel”), the driving assistance device being configured to:
be able to make a setting change to increase an area size of the driving assistance area in such a manner that the driving assistance area expands outward from the vehicle (see at least Fig. 7 with associated text; in particular, [0058]. Fig. 7 illustrates a captured image from a moving vehicle wherein surface area of point A extends beyond surface area of point B. Nishijima’s invention is capable of focusing on surface area of point A based on different weight value.); and
when the driving assistance area is expanded, make a setting change to reduce the driving assistance area when it is detected the vehicle is traveling in any of an auxiliary lane and a through lane of an expressway (see at least Fig. 7 with associated text; in particular, [0058]. Fig. 7 illustrates a captured image from a moving vehicle in a particular lane along a paved roadway wherein surface area of point B is inside of surface area of point A. Nishijima’s invention is capable of focusing on surface area of point B based on different weight value.).
Claims 3 and 4 are directed to the same invention as Claim 1 and also repeat the subject matter; therefore, Claims 3 and 4 are rejected in like manner.
Communications via The Internet and Authorization
MPEP § 502.03 II, “Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application by the examiner. except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the office and the applicant including applicant’s representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview, such as an interview agenda, it must be placed in the application. THE WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION MAY BE SUBMITTED VIA EFS-WEB, MAIL, OR FAX. It cannot be submitted by email.”
Contact Information
Primary Examiner Calvin Cheung’s contact information is listed at the bottom, and he is typically reached MONDAY-THURSDAY, 0700-1700 ET. If attempts to reach the primary by telephone are unsuccessful, the primary’s supervisor, HELAL ALGAHAIM, is available at telephone number (571) 270-5227.
Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice for scheduling an examiner interview that will be performed over telephone or video conferencing (using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool).
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALVIN CHEUNG/
Direct Office Number (571) 270-7041
Email and Fax send to Calvin.Cheung@USPTO.GOV
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645