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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 includes elements in boxes/circles with a number, without a corresponding text/legend/description. IAW MPEP 1.84(0) the examiner may require legends. . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1-9
(interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
Determination unit; 26 Fig 2
Authentication unit; 27 Fig 2
(not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) based upon modified by hardware.
Detection unit; 24 Fig 2 includes use ranging sensor and first camera
Acquisition unit; 25 Fig 2 includes use of 2nd camera
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 § 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BABALA et al., US 2020/0193005 in view of Liu et al., US 20220281413.
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
440
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed detection unit…is met where a motion sensor 114 (Fig 3) and/or camera (112, Fig 3) can be used to detect to detect motion/person approaching the vehicle (para 16, 19-21, 22, 28-29, 31.
The claimed authentication…is met by facial recognition module 130 (Fig 3) (step 280 (Fig 4)(para 35)
The claimed when an object has entered a range of prescribed distance…is met where first a gait of a person is detected when the person reaches a predetermined distance from the vehicle and facial features are determined when the person reaches a second predetermined distance (para 5, 19, 21, 27).
BABALA also discloses in order to minimize power the camera 112 and motion sensor 114 can operate in wake-up mode and start capturing data when either the 112 or 114 detects a person 180 in the field of view 116 (para 16). As shown in Fig 4, based upon the motion detected 215, the sensor whether camera, gait or face are used to authenticate the person.
It is noted that BABALA discloses the speed of approach can include walking, jogging, running etc…(para 11) which would also vary depending upon the vehicle moving or not as would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention.
However, BABALA does not disclose the “illuminance” as claimed above.
The examiner evidences LIU et al., US 20220281413 which discloses a vehicle may be provided with an illuminance sensor (para 42-44, 56, Fig 3) used by peripheral target recognition unit which recognizes a target around a vehicle (para 34-36). As noted in Fig 3, the system based upon the illumination either turns on the first camera (daytime) or the motion detector (nighttime) in order to accurately detect a target around the vehicle.
The motivation to modify BABALA with LIU would provide the same benefit of ensuring during different levels of daylight/darkness the system was able to maintain detection and conserve power by selecting sensors which are ideal based upon the illuminance detected thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2,
BABALA discloses a first and second predetermined distance from the vehicle (para 5, 19, 21,27) where the different distances (1st and 2nd) are carried out by the gait analysis and facial analysis of the camera (1st camera) captured images.
b/c) As noted in claim 1 the object/target is detected within the 2 distances of the vehicle, where the incorporated LIU discloses a camera which captures the luminance around the vehicle which is used by recognition unit to determine if nighttime or daytime (para 42).
The examiner notes the BABALA/LIU do not explicitly recite a ranging sensor where discloses can be a LIDAR, RADAR or SONAR etc… where the examiner notes in the field of vehicle operations the use of a ranging sensor is notoriously well known in the art to ensure safe operation of the vehicle, where such sensors---LIDAR (laser pulses) offers 3D mapping, RADAR (radio detection) all weather long-range detection and SONAR short-range (sound),
In considering claim 8,
Refer to claim 2.
In considering claim 10,
Refer to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BABALA et al., US 2020/0193005 in view of Liu et al., US 20220281413 and OTSUKA, US 20160240085.
In considering claim 7,
The combination of BABALA/LIU do not explicitly recite changing the exposure setting of the camera based upon the measured illuminance.
The examiner incorporates OTSUKA which discloses such features, where based upon the measured illuminance, the controller of the cameras adjust the exposure value to account for the environment (such as daytime) where the exposure is adjusted to ensure the cameras can capture an image around the vehicle (para 31-32, 44).
The motivation to modify the above combination (BABALA/LIU) with OTSUKA would provide the vehicle the same advantage to ensure the camera can capture images around the vehicle in order to perform object detection by ensuring a proper exposure level of the camera in accordance with the illuminance of the surroundings thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art above does not disclose the additional features of the claims as recited and being dependent upon the respective claims as recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited reference on attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422