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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 08/03/2026. Claims 1, 10, 11, and 15 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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: “a wireless communication unit” in claims 10-14.
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
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-8,and 10-15 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.
With respect to claim 2-5, 7-8, and 15, the scope of the claim is indefinite due to the excessive use of "and/or" in the claim which gives rise to multiple interpretations. Accordingly, it's not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with the claim especially if an option picked in a preceding clause that is not compatible when paired with another option later in the claim. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite.
With respect to claim 10, claim limitation “a wireless communication unit”, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claim 10 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 4-5, and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al US 2016/0332574 (the applicant provided this reference in IDS dated 04/02/2026, hence Park).
In re claims 1, 10, and 15, Park discloses generating and displaying an extended virtual viewpoint image to a user (Abstract) and teaches the following:
A vehicle safety and/or driver assistance method, using a first image capturing system having a first field of view on a first vehicle (Paragraph 0007 “generating, by a first vehicle, a first virtual viewpoint image of the first vehicle based on at least one captured surrounding view image of the first vehicle”, Fig.1E, Paragraph 0057 “FIGS. 1E and 1F more particularly illustrate examples of a resultant viewed region that will be acquired or derived by the vehicle V1 110”, and Paragraph 0069), the method comprising:
detecting first vehicle speed data (Paragraph 0057 “each of the vehicles may share their speed, acceleration, and/or direction of travel, so each example vehicle may know the speeds, acceleration, and/or directions of travel of nearby vehicles” and Paragraph 0076 “the receiver 240 received additional information from the other vehicle may include, for example, identification (ID) information of the other vehicle, speed information of the other vehicle”, Fig.18, and Paragraph 0120 “a speed limit”, “a vehicle travelling at a high speed”);
generating, by a data processing unit of the first vehicle, first field of view depth data or object detection distance data (FIGS. 1C and 1D, and Paragraph 0060 “each of the vehicle V1 110 and the vehicle V2 120, for example, may monitor a surrounding region using their respective image acquiring devices, and respectively create surrounding views representing the respective surrounding region for each of vehicle V1 110 and vehicle V2 120”);
evaluating, based on said first vehicle detected speed data, if a minimum field of view depth criteria or if a minimum object distance safety criteria is fulfilled (Paragraph 0096 “due to a determined difference in height between viewpoints or a determined difference in speed between the vehicle V1 110 and the vehicle V2 120”);
in case said minimum field of view depth criteria or said minimum object distance safety criteria is not fulfilled (Paragraph 0061 “the viewable extent of the road region 150 captured by the vehicle V1 110 may be limited or blocked by the vehicle V3 125 and thus, an obstacle 160 located in front of the vehicle V3 125 may be invisible or imperceptible to the vehicle V1 110, while the obstacle 160 will be visible to the vehicle V2 120 and included in the road region 170 captured by the vehicle V2 120, Paragraph 0096 “due to a determined difference in height between viewpoints or a determined difference in speed between the vehicle V1 110 and the vehicle V2 120”), establishing a wireless data connection with a second vehicle (Paragraph 0062 “V1 110 may receive respective road monitoring image information provided by at least one of the RSE 130 and the other vehicles through the wireless cooperative communication”) and combining first image data from the first image capturing system of the second vehicle (Paragraph 0063 “the vehicle V1 110 may combine autonomously or automatically monitored image information of the surroundings of the vehicle V1 110 with the image information received from each of the vehicle V2 120 and the RSE 130”, and Paragraph 0096 “the image converter 310 may adjust image sizes and positions of the viewpoints”);
evaluating, by the data processing unit, based on said combined image data if the minimum field of view depth criteria or if the minimum object distance safety criteria is fulfilled; and depending on the evaluation of whether the minimum field of view depth criteria or the minimum object distance safety criteria is fulfilled, outputting or displaying safety data, said safety data being indicative of whether performing a certain vehicle maneuver is safe (Fig.19, #1960 “The displayed extended virtual viewpoint image may provide the driver with extended surrounding image information as well as related traffic information, simultaneously”)
In re claims 2 and 12, Park teaches the following:
capturing image data using a first image capturing system; applying an artificial intelligence based and/or neuronal network based image evaluation algorithm on said image data to generate first field of view depth data and/or object detection distance data; evaluating if a minimum field of view depth criteria and/or if a minimum object distance criteria is fulfilled; in case said minimum field of view depth criteria and/or said minimum object distance criteria is not fulfilled, receiving second image data via a data connection from at least one second image capturing system having a second field of view; combining first image capturing system image data and second image capturing system image data; and automatically evaluating based on said combined image data if performing a certain vehicle maneuver is safe or not safe, in particular using a safety criteria evaluation software algorithm, in particular using an artificial intelligence based and/or neuronal network based safety criteria evaluation algorithm (Paragraph 0138 “a machine or special-purpose computer to perform the operations performed by the hardware components and the methods as described above. In one example, the processor or computer readable code, instructions, or software include machine code that is directly executed by the processing device, processor, or computer, such as machine code produced by a compiler”)
In re claims 4 and 13, Park teaches the following:
detecting speed limit data; correlating said detected speed limit data with detected first vehicle speed data; deriving safety criteria data, based on said correlated speed data; and correlating said safety criteria data with said field of view depth data and/or said object distance data; in particular comprising steps wherein: speed limit data is detected based on further image data, captured by an image capturing device and/or based on digital map data, in particular based on further image data captured by an image capturing device comprised in said first vehicle and/or based on digital map data stored in a data memory unit of said first vehicle (Fig.18, and Paragraph 0120)
In re claim 5, Park teaches the following:
capturing first image data from one first image capturing device or from a plurality of first image capturing devices comprised in said first image capturing system; and in case said minimum field of view depth criteria and/or said minimum object distance safety criteria is not fulfilled, capturing second image data from one second image capturing device or from a plurality of second image capturing devices comprised in said second image capturing system; in particular further comprising the steps of: receiving in said first vehicle, in a first wireless communication unit comprised in said first vehicle, second image capturing system image data, transmitted by a second wireless communication unit comprised in a second vehicle (FIGS. 1C and 1D, and Paragraph 0060 “each of the vehicle V1 110 and the vehicle V2 120, for example, may monitor a surrounding region using their respective image acquiring devices, and respectively create surrounding views representing the respective surrounding region for each of vehicle V1 110 and vehicle V2 120”)
In re claim 7, Park teaches the following:
wherein the method and/or data is further adapted to avoid collision while a first vehicle is performing a vehicle maneuver to change from a first road lane to a different road lane (Paragraph 0066)
In re claims 8 and 11, Park teaches the disclosed invention as recited above with respect to claim 1 and Park further teaches the following:
the first image capturing system is a first rear view image capturing system (Paragraph 0071 and 0091)
the speed data detection unit comprises a first vehicle speed data detection unit (Paragraph 0057) and a first speed limit data detection unit (Paragraph 0120 “speed limit”);
and the at least one processor comprises an artificial intelligence module configured to generate the first field of view depth data and the object detection distance data (Paragraph 0138)
In re claims 9 and 14, Park teaches the following:
wherein the at least one image capturing system is a Camera Monitoring System, in particular a rear view Camera Monitoring System, and wherein the image data are Camera Monitoring System image data (Paragraph 0091)
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) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Shalev-Shwartz et al US 2021/0179096 A1 (hence Shalev-Shwartz).
In re claim 3, Park discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein an artificial intelligence based and/or neuronal network based image evaluation algorithm comprises a machine learning model in the form of a neural network, in particular in the form of a transversal neural network and/or in the form of a convolutional neural network, correlated with a generative pre-trained transformer
Nevertheless, Shalev-Shwartz discloses systems and methods for navigating according to potential accident liability constraints (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein an artificial intelligence based and/or neuronal network based image evaluation algorithm comprises a machine learning model in the form of a neural network, in particular in the form of a transversal neural network and/or in the form of a convolutional neural network, correlated with a generative pre-trained transformer (Paragraph 0100)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Park reference to include image processing software, as well as a trained system, such as a neural network, or a deep neural network, for example, as taught by Shalev-Shwartz, with a reasonable expectation success, in order to analyze a set of images acquired by image capturing devices (Shalev-Shwartz, Paragraph 0164).
In re claim 6, Shalev-Shwartz teaches the following:
wherein said safety criteria data, derived based on said correlated speed data, is minimum safety breaking distance data, in particular data representing a minimum safety breaking distance between a first vehicle in a first road lane and a further vehicle in the same road lane or in a different road lane (Paragraph 0614)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks that Park fails to teach or disclose generating depth data or object detection distance data, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The BRI of the claim limitation depth data is what a camera system or sensor can see horizontally/vertically (in angles or linear dimensions) and how far away objects are in the 3D space and Par discloses said feature in at least Paragraph 0007 “generating, by a first vehicle, a first virtual viewpoint image of the first vehicle based on at least one captured surrounding view image of the first vehicle” as recited above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks that Park fails to teach or disclose evaluating safety criteria based on detected vehicle speed, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, Park discloses in Paragraph 0096 that “due to a determined difference in speed between the vehicle V1 110 and the vehicle V2 120, actual scales of the image of the virtual viewpoint image information 630 and the virtual viewpoint image 720 may differ from one another”, “it may be desirable to match the image of the virtual viewpoint image information 720 to the virtual viewpoint image 630 when an extended virtual viewpoint image is generated for the vehicle V1 110”. The matching of the image is based on the scale of the image not meeting certain criteria based on speed difference between the vehicles and that reads on safety criteria based on detected vehicle speed.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks that Park fails to teach or disclose conditionally triggering vehicle to vehicle communication based on safety criteria failure, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, Park recites establishing a wireless data connection with a second vehicle (Paragraph 0062 “V1 110 may receive respective road monitoring image information provided by at least one of the RSE 130 and the other vehicles through the wireless cooperative communication”). Accordingly, Park discloses said limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights