CTNF 19/124,976 CTNF 90260 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. DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to application filed on April 28, 2025. The Preliminary Amendment filed on April 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are currently pending in the application. Drawings The drawings filed on 04/28/2025 are acknowledged and are acceptable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 6, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Kaji (Japanese Publication No. JP2018116553A; machine translation obtained from Espacenet) . Regarding claim 1 , Kaji discloses a warning apparatus (e.g., para. [0010]: the sign recognition device 3 ) comprising: at least one memory ( memory 17 ) storing instructions (see para. [0011]), and at least one processor ( control unit 7 ) configured to execute the instructions to: recognize a region ( a supplementary sign region ) included in an image obtained by imaging surroundings of a traveling vehicle ( an image that was acquired using a camera 51 and represents the area around the vehicle ) (see e.g., para. [0027]-[0032]); determine whether or not character recognition is necessary, on the basis of a type of the recognized region (see e.g., para. [0030]: " In step 5, the auxiliary sign recognition unit 23 performs a process to recognize the auxiliary sign in the image acquired in step 2 and determines whether or not the auxiliary sign is present "; para. [0031]: " If it is determined that an auxiliary marker exists in the image obtained in step 2, proceed to step 6; otherwise, terminate this process "; and para. [0032]: " In step 6, the auxiliary sign recognition unit 23 sets the word presence region in the image acquired in step 2 "; Therefore, it can be said that the invention disclosed in Kaji determines the necessity of character recognition on the basis of the type of recognized region ( on the basis of whether or not the auxiliary sign is present ) ( if it is determined that the auxiliary sign exists, the word existence area is set, and if it is determined that the auxiliary sign does not exist, the process ends )); perform the character recognition on the recognized region in a case where it is determined that the character recognition is necessary (e.g., para. [0034]: uses a character recognition algorithm to calculate the probability P(wi) that a word wi is present in the word existence region 73, which is a partial region of the recognized auxiliary sign ); determine whether or not a warning is necessary, on the basis of a result of the character recognition ( the estimated meaning of the word ) and specification information of the vehicle ( the height of the own vehicle ) (see e.g., para. [0052]-[0059], [0064]); and output warning information in a case where it is determined that the warning is necessary (see e.g., para. [0064]: if necessary, carries out a display, warning, etc. on a display device 55 ). Regarding claim 6 , Kaji discloses the warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to determine that the character recognition is necessary, in a case where a type of the recognized region corresponds to a specific type (see e.g., para. [0031]-[0034]: when it is determined that an auxiliary sign exists, it is determined that character recognition is necessary (a word existence area is set, and the probability P (wi) that the word wi exists in the word existence area 73 is calculated by a character recognition algorithm) ). Regarding claim 9 , Kaji discloses the warning apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform the character recognition by using a recognition algorithm ( a sign recognition algorithm, a character recognition algorithm ) corresponding to a type of the recognized region, in a case where it is determined that the character recognition is necessary (see e.g., para. [0028]-[0034]). System claim 11 is drawn to the system of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, system claim 11 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above. Method claim 13 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore, method claim 13 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 of this title, 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 2-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji in view of Miyamura (Japanese Publication No. JP2004114907A; machine translation obtained from Espacenet) . Regarding claim 2 , Kaji discloses the warning apparatus according to claim 1. Kaji fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform depth recognition on the recognized region, and determine whether or not the warning is necessary, on the basis of a result of the depth recognition. However, Miyamura is in the same art of vehicle width and height detection warning device (para. [0001]) and teaches: perform depth recognition on the recognized region ( subject image ) (see e.g., para. [0023]: detecting the height from the road surface to the zebra pattern on the basis of the distance to the zebra pattern detected by the zebra pattern detection means 18 ), and determine whether or not the warning is necessary, on the basis of a result of the depth recognition ( compares the height detected by the height restricting means to the allowable passing height of a vehicle (a value achieved by adding the vehicle height and passing margin of the vehicle) so as to determine whether or not the vehicle is unable to pass ) ( if it is determined that passage is not possible, issues a warning sound, or displays a warning, indicating that the vehicle cannot pass in the vehicle width direction or the vehicle height direction ) (see e.g., para. [0023]). The inventions described in Kaji and Miyamura perform the same function and achieve the same effect of determining whether or not a vehicle is unable to pass from an image captured using an imaging means of the vehicle, and issuing a warning to the driver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaji to incorporate the teachings of Miyamura to perform depth recognition on the recognized area and further determine whether or not a warning is necessary based on the result of the depth recognition. Doing so enables to accurately determine the necessity of a warning based on the result of the depth recognition. Regarding claim 3 , Kaji and Miyamura discloses the warning apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform the depth recognition in a case where it is determined that the character recognition is unnecessary (see Miyamura, e.g., para. [0023]: discloses carrying out depth recognition regardless of character recognition; therefore it can be said to carry out depth recognition in situations in which character recognition is determined to be unnecessary ). Regarding claim 4 , Kaji and Miyamura discloses the warning apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform the depth recognition on a region, which is within a predetermined range including a center of the image, among the recognized regions (see Miyamura, e.g., para. [0020]-[0023]: an image capturing the direction of travel, such as the front or rear of the vehicle ). Regarding claim 5 , Kaji and Miyamura discloses the warning apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to perform the depth recognition in a case where a type of the recognized region corresponds to a specific type (see Miyamura, e.g., para. [0020]-[0023]: there is a zebra pattern warning display composed of yellow and black, red and white, etc. in the subject image ). System claim 12 is drawn to the system of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 2. Therefore, system claim 12 corresponds to apparatus claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji in view of Saito et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP2021124794A; machine translation obtained from Espacenet; hereinafter as, “Saito”) . Regarding claim 7 , Kaji discloses the warning apparatus according to claim 1. Kaji fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to output a capturing position of the image and the warning information in a case where it is determined that the warning is necessary, in order to generate warning map information to be provided to another vehicle having the specification information similar to that of the vehicle within a predetermined range. However, Saito is in the same art of vehicle warning systems (abstract) and teaches: outputting a capturing position of the image ( the shooting position of the warning target ) and the warning information ( the name of the warning target ) in a case where it is determined that the warning is necessary, in order to generate warning map information ( high-precision data reflected on the map of a car navigation application ) to be provided to another vehicle having the specification information similar to that of the vehicle within a predetermined range (see e.g., para. [0027]-[0034] and [0054]-[0062]). The inventions described in Kaji and Saito perform the same function and achieve the same effect of determining a warning subject from an image captured using an imaging means of a vehicle, and issuing a warning to the driver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaji to incorporate the teachings of Saito to output a capturing position of the image and the warning information in order to generate warning map information to be provided to another vehicle. Doing so helps prevent collisions by enabling the warning apparatus to exchange warnings with nearby vehicles. Regarding claim 8 , Kaji discloses the warning apparatus according to claim 1. Kaji fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to output the warning information to an outside of the vehicle, in a case where it is determined that the warning is necessary. However, Saito is in the same art of vehicle warning systems (abstract) and teaches: outputting the warning information to an outside of the vehicle, in a case where it is determined that the warning is necessary (see e.g., para. [0028], [0039] and [0177]: data pertaining to the warning subject during vehicle travel is transmitted to an information processing device 100 or the terminal devices of other users (family, friends, etc.) ). The inventions described in Kaji and Saito perform the same function and achieve the same effect of determining a warning subject from an image captured using an imaging means of a vehicle, and issuing a warning to the driver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaji to incorporate the teachings of Saito to provide outputting the warning information to an outside of the vehicle. Doing so enables the warning apparatus to provide warning information both inside and outside the vehicle . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaji in view of Kobayashi et al. (Japanese Publication No. JP2014006707A; machine translation obtained from Espacenet; hereinafter as, “Kobayashi”) . Regarding claim 10 , Kaji discloses the warning apparatus according to claim 1. Kaji fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to output the warning information corresponding to the result of the character recognition, in a case where it is determined that the warning is necessary. However, Kobayashi is in the same art of a driver assistance device that provides drivers with notification information corresponding to traffic regulations (para. [0001]) and teaches: outputting the warning information corresponding to the result of the character recognition, in a case where it is determined that the warning is necessary (see e.g., para. [0017]-[0021]: if traffic restriction information on a regulatory sign 2A indicates the upper limit for weight, a message such as "This road is impassable due to the weight exceeding the upper limit", or an icon or image indicating impassibility, is displayed ). The inventions described in Kaji and Kobayashi perform the same function and achieve the same effect of carrying out character recognition from an image captured using an imaging means of a vehicle so as to compare the recognition result to the specification information of the vehicle, determining whether or not the vehicle is unable to pass, and issuing a warning to the driver. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaji to incorporate the teachings of Kobayashi to provide outputting the warning information corresponding to the result of the character recognition. Doing so allows traffic restriction information on a regulatory/road sign to be presented as a message, icon, or image, thereby improving driver’s awareness while reducing the burden on the driver . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art . Horiuchi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0406076) discloses a warning control apparatus. Gieseke (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0222592) discloses a vehicle clearance alert system. Tran (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0157330) discloses smart car method and system to navigate a road. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time). 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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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. /ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 2 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 3 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 4 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 5 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 6 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 7 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 8 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 9 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 10 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 11 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 19/124,976 Page 12 Art Unit: 2685
Prosecution Insights