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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2024-015009 dated 2/2/2024. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 1/27/2025 has been considered and placed in the application file.
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 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), 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):
(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.
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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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), 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 image compressor that compresses the image in front of the own vehicle acquired by the acquirer” in claim 4;
“an acquirer that acquires an image in front of an own vehicle captured by a camera mounted on the own vehicle, a distance between the own vehicle and a preceding vehicle, and a traveling speed of the own vehicle” in claim 4;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 recites “a radar that measures a distance between the own vehicle and a preceding vehicle.” It is unclear if preceding is defined as the vehicle in front or the vehicle in the back, as by definition preceding means “existing before a time or place”. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the preceding vehicle as the vehicle in front of the own vehicle.
Claim 2 recites “the first image quality is an image quality with which, assuming that an image of a person right in front of the own vehicle is captured by the camera, the person right in front of the own vehicle included in the image captured by the camera is unrecognizable; the second image quality is an image quality with which, assuming that an image of the preceding vehicle at a position that is less than the second threshold value away from the own vehicle is captured by the camera, a license number of the preceding vehicle included in the image captured by the camera is unrecognizable; and the third image quality is an image quality with which, assuming that a person exists at a position that is the second threshold value away from the own vehicle and that is in front and on a side of the own vehicle, the person is unrecognizable.”. It is unclear what the Applicant is claiming when stating the image captured by the camera is unrecognizable, as unrecognizable can correspond to multiple interpretations such as being blurred, completely blacked out, etc. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret unrecognizable as being blurry.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the second threshold value is a distance determined by a width of the own vehicle and an angle of view of the camera, and is a shortest distance to the position at which it is possible that the person existing in front and on a side of the own vehicle is included in the image in front of the own vehicle captured by the camera when the own vehicle travels at a higher traveling speed than the first threshold value”. It is unclear how a person can exist “in front and on a side of the own vehicle”, as a person can only exist at one spot. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this as a person existing in a diagonal position from the vehicle included in the image. It is also unclear what the Applicant is claiming when stating “shortest distance”, as a person (as claimed) is assumingly always in an image (and shortest distance through BRI can be as close as a person’s face being extremely close to the camera). For examination purposes and until further clarification, the examiner will interpret this limitation as the distance greater than or equal to the second threshold.
Claims 4-5 correspond to claim 1 and thus are rejected for the same reasons of indefiniteness.
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, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki (US 8229623 B2) in view of Guan (US 20190019414 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maki discloses an own vehicle (Maki, Col. 2, Lines 51-54, "According to the above aspects, the importance of the present position of the vehicle is determined, and the image quality (compression rate, etc.) of the moving image to be recorded is controlled on the basis of this importance") comprising:
a camera that captures an image in front of the own vehicle (Maki, Col. 8, Lines 53-55, "The image input from the front-view camera 101 is compressed at the compression rate determined by the method explained in embodiment 2.").
While Maki discloses a radar that measures a distance between the own vehicle and a position (Maki, Col. 11, Lines 37-40, "The compression rate controller 116 calculates the distance between the detected present position or estimated present position, and all the important imaging points registered in the importance management database 117 (S607)"), they do not teach “a radar that measures a distance between the own vehicle and a preceding vehicle”.
However, Guan teaches a radar that measures a distance between the own vehicle and a preceding vehicle (Guan, paragraph [0018], “In another embodiment, the ranging member may be located in at least one of just front, left front and right front of a vehicle head of the vehicle, and is configured to detect a distance between the present vehicle and a front vehicle located corresponding to a location of the ranging member”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to use a vehicle as a reference for Maki’s position, as taught by Guan.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to prevent vehicle collisions and increase vehicle safety.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Maki in view of Guan discloses a traveling speed sensor that detects a traveling speed of the own vehicle (Maki, Col. 4, Lines 25-27, " On the other hand, a GPS receiving unit 121 receives a GPS wave, a vehicle speed sensor 122 detects the present vehicle speed, and a brake sensor 123 detects the brake"),
and an image compressor that compresses the image in front of the own vehicle captured by the camera, wherein when the traveling speed of the own vehicle detected by the traveling speed sensor is equal to or less than a first threshold value, the image compressor compresses the image in front of the own vehicle into an image of a first image quality (Maki, Col. 7, Lines 15-19, Fig. 6 below, "When the compression rate controller 116 judges that the closest approach predict time is more than 2 seconds and not more than 4 seconds (Yes at S305), it instructs the image compressor 113 to compress the image at a low compression rate (2 Mbps) (S306)", the image is compressed based on how fast and how much distance is between the vehicle and the imaging point, thus accounting for speed and distance. The threshold for speed is the assumed speed as shown in Col. 6, Lines 1-11),
PNG
media_image1.png
556
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
when the traveling speed of the own vehicle detected by the traveling speed sensor is more than the first threshold value and also when the distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle measured by the radar is less than a second threshold value, the image compressor compresses the image in front of the own vehicle into an image of a second image quality that is a higher image quality than the first image quality (Maki, Col. 7, Lines 10-15, "When the compression rate controller 116 judges that the closest approach predict time is more than 4 seconds and not more than 6 seconds (Yes at S303), it instructs the image compressor 113 to compress the image at a high compression rate (1 Mbps) (S304).", the distance threshold is how much distance is from 6 seconds to the imaging point. Since the approach time here is less than 6 seconds, then that means the distance is less than the threshold),
and when the traveling speed of the own vehicle detected by the traveling speed sensor is more than the first threshold value and also when the distance between the own vehicle and the preceding vehicle measured by the radar is equal to or more than the second threshold value, the image compressor compresses the image in front of the own vehicle into an image of a third image quality that is a higher image quality than the second image quality (Maki, Col. 7, Lines 6-10, ". In FIG. 6, when the compression rate controller 116 judges that the closest approach predict time is more than 6 seconds (Yes at S301), it instructs the image compressor 113 to compress the image at the highest compression rate (512 kbps) (S302)", the distance threshold is 6 seconds. Since the approach time here is 6 seconds or more, then that means the distance is greater than the threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Maki in view of Guan to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Claim 4 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting an image processing device (Maki, Col. 4, Lines 13-17, “The image input from a camera 101 for taking a forward scene of the vehicle is digitally converted by the A/D converter 111, and the digitally converted image data is temporarily stored in the frame memory 112”). Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Claim 5 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory storage medium storing a program (Maki, Col. 4, Lines 17-22, “Further, the image data is digitally compressed by the image compressor 113 at a compression rate (for example, 512 kbps, 1 Mbps, 2 Mbps, 4 Mbps) determined by the compression rate controller 116. The compressed image data is temporarily stored in the memory 114, and is stored in a recording medium by means of the Image recorder 115”). Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-0245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00 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, Ms. Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/WAYNE ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights