-9
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This is a Continuation application of application Ser. No. 18/149,720 filed on Jan. 4, 2023, which is a Continuation application of application Ser. No. 17/546,550 filed on Dec. 9, 2021, which is a Continuation application of application Ser. No. 17/114,761 filed on Dec. 8, 2020, which in turn is a Continuation application of application Ser. No. 16/928,075 filed on Jul. 14, 2020, which in turn is a Continuation application of application Ser. No. 16/282,775 filed on Feb. 22, 2019, which in turn is a Divisional application of application Ser. No. 15/314,285 filed on Jun. 6, 2017, which in turn is a National Phase Application of International Application No. PCT/JP2015/065593 filed on May 29, 2015, which claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application No. 2015-005171 filed on Jan. 14, 2015, Japanese Patent Application No. 2014-173833 filed on Aug. 28, 2014, and Japanese Patent Application No. 2014-111375 filed on May 29, 2014. The disclosure of each of the prior applications is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
4. 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.
5. 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: an image capture unit; a setting unit in claim 1.
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.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Independent claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent No. 12380705 (US Patent Application No. 18/148,720).
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
8. Independent claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent No. 1220215 (US Patent Application No. 17/114,761).
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
9. Independent claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent No. US 11572016 B2 (U.S application No. 17/546,550).
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
10. Independent claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent No. 10807532 (US Patent Application No. 16/282,775).
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
11. Independent claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S Patent No. 10279742 (US Patent Application No. 15/314,285).
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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 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.
13. 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.
(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.
14. Claims 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okada et al. (US 2015/0178582A1) (hereinafter Okada).
Regarding claim 1, Okada discloses an image capture device that is mounted to a vehicle (e.g., see abstract; Figs. 1-2), the device comprising:
an image capture unit (e.g., see Fig. 1-2, paragraphs 0052, 0053, 0056: imaging unit 15); and
a setting unit (e.g., see Fig. 3: 25, 29; paragraphs 0067-0070: the region setter 25; paragraphs 0076: the controller 29) that, based upon a speed of the vehicle (e.g., see Figs. 3, paragraphs 0069, 0081, 0082: the controller 29 controls the movable object information receiver 22 to obtain the travel speed of the vehicle; also see Fig. 6, steps S103-S108), sets an image capture condition for each region of the image capture unit (e.g., see Figs.3, 4-5, paragraphs 0067-0070; paragraphs 0085, 0088, 0090), each of which has a plurality of pixels, or for each pixel of the image capture unit (e.g., see Figs. 5-6, paragraphs 0073, 0085, 0087, 0090: the pixels of the peripheral image and thinning and reading the pixels).
Regarding claim 2, Okada discloses the image capture device according to claim 1, wherein the speed of the vehicle is controlled by a control unit of the vehicle (e.g., see Figs. 3, paragraphs 0069, 0081, 0082: the controller 29 controls the movable object information receiver 22 to obtain the travel speed of the vehicle; also see Fig. 6, steps S103-S108).
Regarding claim 3, Okada discloses the image capture device according to claim 1, wherein the speed of the vehicle is set by actuating an actuation unit of the vehicle (e.g., see Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 0064, 0068, 0069: travel speed and brake control; Fig. 6, paragraphs 0083).
Regarding claim 4, Okada discloses the image capture device according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit sets the image capture condition based upon a state of a road (e.g., see paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0088: a region setter for setting, based on the road information, a region of a peripheral image of the movable object to extract; Fig. 6, paragraphs 0078-0080; also see paragraphs 0065-0068: road information and condition).
Regarding claim 5, Okada discloses the image capture device according to claim 4, wherein the state of the road is a state of a line that specifies a lane upon the road along which the vehicle is traveling (e.g., see paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0088: a region setter for setting, based on the road information and condition; Fig. 6, paragraphs 0078-0080).
Regarding claim 6, Okada discloses the image capture device according to claim 5, wherein the line is detected from an image captured by the image capture unit (e.g., see Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0088: a region setter for setting, based on the road information, a region of a peripheral image of the movable object to extract; Fig. 6, paragraphs 0078-0080; also see paragraphs 0065-0068: road information and condition).
Regarding claim 7, Okada discloses the image capture device according to claim 5, wherein the setting unit sets a region of the image capture unit for capture of an image of the line and sets the image capture condition for the region for capture of the image of the line (e.g., see Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0088: a region setter for setting, based on the road information, a region of a peripheral image of the movable object to extract; Fig. 6, paragraphs 0078-0080; also see paragraphs 0065-0068: road information and condition).
Regarding claim 9, Okada discloses the image capture device according to claim 7, wherein as the image capture condition, the setting unit lowers a pixel decimation ratio for the region that captures the image of the line to be lower than a pixel decimation ratio for a region of the image capture unit other than the region that captures the image of the line (e.g., see (e.g., see Figs. 4-6, paragraphs 0073, 0085, 0087, 0090: the pixels of the peripheral image and thinning and reading the pixels; Fig. 6, paragraphs 0073, 0085-0090).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada et al. (US 2015/0178582A1) (hereinafter Okada) in view of Satoh et al., (US 2003/0169902A1) (hereinafter Satoh).
Regarding claim 8, Okada does not explicitly disclose the image capture device according to claim 7, wherein as the image capture condition, the setting unit increases a frame rate for the region that captures the image of the line to be higher than a frame rate for a region of the image capture unit other than the region that captures the image of the line.
However, Satoh discloses wherein as the image capture condition (e.g., see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0016-0018, 0024-0028; paragraphs 0043-0046), the setting unit increases a frame rate for the region that captures the image of the line to be higher than a frame rate for a region of the image capture unit other than the region (e.g., see paragraphs 0021-0023, 0026-0028; also see Fig. 2, paragraph 0034) that captures the image of the line (e.g., see paragraphs 0030: white line of the road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Okada to add the teachings of Satoh as above, in order to provide a vehicular image processing apparatus which provides an image in a high quality and a detection result in a high reliability (see paragraph 0007: Satoh).
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ON MUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7557 and whose direct fax number is (571) 270-8557. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am - 6pm (ET).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ON S MUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights