www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/124,693
`
`09/09/2016
`
`SATOSHI NAKAYA
`
`PIPMB-56897
`
`2204
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`10’17’2018
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`H0DGES~ SUSAN E
`
`2489
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/ 17/2018
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/124,693
`Examiner
`SUSAN E HODGES
`
`Applicant(s)
`NAKAYA, SATOSHI
`Art Unit
`AIA Status
`2489
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 23 August 2018.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—16 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) fl is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—7 and 15—16 is/are rejected.
`
`C] Claim(s) _
`
`is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 09 September 2016 is/are: a). accepted or b)E] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)|:] Some”
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1..
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`21:]
`
`Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20181011
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Election/Restrictions
`
`Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Figs. 2 — 4) drawn to Claims 2 — 7, 15
`
`and 16 in the reply filed on August 23, 2018 is acknowledged.
`
`Claim 8 — 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as
`
`being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
`
`Priority
`
`Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119
`
`(a)—(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2014—07985 8 filed on April
`
`9, 2014. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on PCT/JP2015/001824
`
`filed on March 30, 2015.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on September 9, 2016 and
`
`June 29, 2017. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
`
`Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 3
`
`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 1, 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 4
`
`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. 1 12(f)
`
`or pre—AIA 35 US .C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted
`
`under 35 U.S.C. ll2(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. ll2(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.
`
`ll2(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. ll2(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. ll2(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. ll2(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 first projection target that enables projection of an image and is capable of changing a
`
`position of the first projection target in claim 1 and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 5
`
`the vehicle evaluation device evaluates a function based on a camera and a function based
`
`on a distance measurement sensor in claim 2.
`
`Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. ll2(f) or
`
`pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. ll2, 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.
`
`A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
`
`structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. ll2(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. ll2, sixth
`
`paragraph limitation: page 9 lines l4, 15, 23, 26 and 27 describes the target as a physical object
`
`mounted to a rail “Rail 205 (205a, 205b) generates power for generating operating power to move
`
`projection target 207 in a predetermined direction”, “Projection target 207 is an object that enables
`
`projection of an image”, “Projection target 207 serves as an approaching object to vehicle”, and
`
`further illustrated in Fig. 2, for example.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`ll2(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`ll2, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the claim
`
`limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. ll2(f) or pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. ll2,
`
`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. ll2(f) or pre—AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. ll2, sixth paragraph.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. ll2(a):
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/ 124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 6
`
`(a) IN GENERAL.7The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and
`of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable
`any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and
`use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying
`out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and
`process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled
`in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and
`shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`Claim 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 01‘ 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first
`
`paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s)
`
`contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
`
`convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre—AIA the
`
`inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`With regards to Claim 15, it recites the limitations “the first projection target includes a
`
`plurality of members which are movable in a vertical direction” and “the controller controls a
`
`height of the first projection target in the vertical direction”. The specification states on page 16
`
`lines 23—24 that “Projection target 207d has an operating unit inside such as a motor, and can be
`
`extended and contracted in the vertical direction”. However, as described on page 11 lines 7—9
`
`“Projection target 207b is variable in positions in the direction parallel to the direction in which
`
`vehicle 1 moves forward or backward when vehicle 1 is placed at a predetermined position.
`
`Projection target 207b is moved by operating power generated by rail 205 ”. Nowhere in the
`
`specification does it reference or describe how the height of the target is controlled in the vertical
`
`direction, just merely that the projection target
`
`is extended and contracted without further
`
`explaining or defining how this is accomplished. Yet, the specification states that the projection
`
`target moves along a rail. Therefore, it is not understood how the target is extended and contracted
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 7
`
`in the vertical direction (up and down) along the rail. Hence, it is not found how, when or where,
`
`the height of the projection target is controlled in the vertical direction. The specification does not
`
`support the interpretation of the movable in a vertical direction or controls a height of the first
`
`projection target in the vertical direction. Claim 16 is rejected for the reasons above by virtue of
`
`its respective dependency.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 1 12(1))
`
`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 1 — 7, 15 and 16 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 pre—AIA the applicant regards as the
`
`invention.
`
`Regarding Claim 1, it recites “a first projection target that enables projection of an image”
`
`and then recites “a first projector that projects an image”, which render the claim indefinite. It is
`
`unclear if the subsequent recitation of an image refers to the originally recited image or to
`
`independent or an additional image. Similarly for Claims 2 “captures an image”, Claim 3 “an
`
`image to be projected”, Claim 6 “project an image of a guard rail” and Claim 15 “an image to be
`
`projected”. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner has broadly interpreted the limitations.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 8
`
`Regarding Claim 1, the phrase “is capable of changing a position of the first projection
`
`target” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually
`
`disclosed (those encompassed by “capable”),
`
`thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s)
`
`unascertainable. The claims should clearly point out and set forth what the applicant is trying to
`
`encompass, positively reciting the elements to those directed to “capable”. One of an ordinary skill
`
`in the art would not ascertain the scope of the invention as claimed, since a particular preference
`
`or way, lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.
`
`Regarding Claim 1, it recites “a controller that controls the position of the first projection
`
`target and changes the image projected by the first projector according to the position of the first
`
`projection target”, which renders the claim indefinite. This limitation is not clearly defined in the
`
`specifications. The specification states in page 6 lines 23—25, “evaluation controller 203 controls
`
`the position of projection target 207 and performs control for changing an image projected by
`
`
`projector 204 according to the position of projection target 207” and page 9 lines 25 —26, “various
`
`im_agg are projected on projection target 207 by projector 204”. In addition, the application further
`
`states in page 10 line 26 to page 11 line 2, “Evaluation controller 203 controls the position of
`
`projection target 207 and an image projected by projector 204 controlled by evaluation controller
`
`203 changes according to the position of projection target 207, thereby simulating a surrounding
`
`environment of vehicle 1”. However,
`
`the specification further states on page 12 lines 1—4
`
`“evaluation controller 203 performs control for changing the image to be projected by projector
`
`204 according to the position of projection target 207. Specifically, evaluation controller 203
`
`performs control to increase an area of the image to be projected with the approach of projection
`
`target 207b to projector 204b”. It is not understood whether changing the image relates to various
`
`images that simulate the environment or whether changing the image relates to increasing an area
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/ 124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 9
`
`of the image, therefore changing the size of the image. Therefore, the meets and bounds of the
`
`claims requirements regarding changes an image is unclear. For examination purposes the
`
`examiner has broadly interpreted the limitation. Claims 2 — 7, 15 and 16 are rejected for the reasons
`
`above by virtue of their respective dependencies.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, it recites “the vehicle evaluation device evaluates a function based on
`
`a camera” and then recites “a function based on a distance measurement sensor”, which render the
`
`claim indefinite. It is unclear if the subsequent recitation of a function refers to the originally
`
`recited function or to independent function. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner has
`
`broadly interpreted the limitations.
`
`Regarding Claim 15, it recites the limitations “the first projection target includes a
`
`plurality of members which are movable in a vertical direction” and “the controller controls a
`
`height of the first projection target in the vertical direction”, which renders the claim indefinite.
`
`This limitation is not clearly defined in the specifications. The specification states on page 16 lines
`
`23—24 that “Projection target 207d has an operating unit inside such as a motor, and can be extended
`
`and contracted in the vertical direction”. However, as described on page 11 lines 7—9 “Projection
`
`target 207b is variable in positions in the direction parallel to the direction in which vehicle 1
`
`moves forward or backward when vehicle 1 is placed at a predetermined position. Projection target
`
`207b is moved by operating power generated by rail 205b”. Nowhere in the specification does it
`
`reference or describe how the height of the target is controlled in the vertical direction just merely
`
`that the projection target has a motor without explaining or defining how it moves the target in the
`
`vertical direction. The specification clearly teaches moving the target in the forward and backward
`
`direction (horizontal direction). Therefore, the meets and bounds of the claims requirements
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 10
`
`regarding controls a height of the first projection target in the vertical direction is unclear. For
`
`examination purposes the examiner has broadly interpreted the limitation.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “the vehicle evaluation device evaluates a function
`
`based on a camera and a function based on a distance measurement sensor” 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. The specification merely repeats
`
`the function without any structure and corresponding software or algorithm to perform the function
`
`“a vehicle evaluation device that can evaluate various functions of an on—vehicle device while
`
`keeping the vehicle still” (Page 4 lines 25—26, Page 6 lines 15—19). There is no disclosure of any
`
`particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the evaluation. The specification
`
`does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which
`
`filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed 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. For examination
`
`purposes the examiner has broadly interpreted the vehicle evaluation device.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 11
`
`(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.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 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 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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 12
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(l) 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Bond (US
`
`2006/0042365 A1) referred to as Bond hereinafter.
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Bond discloses a vehicle evaluation device (Fig. 1, Par. [0024],
`
`apparatus 10 for simulated driving of a motor car 12 whilst the car 12 remains stationary)
`
`comprising:
`
`a first projection target (Par. [0024], a viewing screen arrangement 20) that enables
`
`projection of an image on the first projection target (Par. [0024], scenic imagery onto a
`
`respective screen portion) and is capable of changing a position of the first projection target
`
`(Par. [0032], the computer 66 also controls operation of the actuators 36 for raising the front screen
`
`portion 28);
`
`a first projector (Par. [0024], projectors 22, 24, 26 of a visual display system) that
`
`projects an image to the first projection target (Par. [0024], projector 22 projects images onto
`
`opposite front screen portion 28, projector 24 projects onto opposite side screen portion 32 and
`
`projector 26 projects onto opposite side screen portion 30); and
`
`a controller that controls the position of the first projection target (Par. [0032], the
`
`computer 66 also controls operation of the actuators 36 for raising the front screen portion 28) and
`
`changes the image projected by the first projector according to the position of the first
`
`projection target (Par. [0046], the simulation software is such as to drive the computer's image
`
`generator and thus the projectors 22, 24, 26 to display on the viewing screen arrangement 20
`
`realistic three—dimensional virtual front (on front screen portion 28) and side (on side screen
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 13
`
`portions 30 and 32) scenic imagery of front—on and passing scenery (i.e. changes the image) as
`
`though the driver was racing the car 12 (i.e. according to the position of the screens)).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC.
`
`102 and 103 (or as subject to pre—AIA 35 USC. 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.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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.
`
`Claims 2, 3, 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Bond (US 2006/0042365 A1), in view of Freiburger (US 2015/0244983 A1) referred to as
`
`Freiburger hereinafter.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Bond discloses Claim 1. Bond further discloses the vehicle
`
`evaluation device evaluates a function based on a camera (Par. [0040], the dynamometer 14
`
`also includes a video monitoring system comprising video cameras 128) which is installed at a
`
`predetermined position and captures an image around the vehicle (Par. [0040], video cameras
`
`128 located to view the operation of the vehicle securing mechanism 48 and display the
`
`movement).
`
`While Bond teaches a camera for evaluating a function of the vehicle (Par. [0040]), Bond
`
`does not specifically teach a camera mounted to the vehicle and a distance measurement sensor.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 14
`
`Therefore, Bond fails to explicitly teach the vehicle evaluation device evaluates a function based
`
`on a camera which is mounted to a vehicle installed at a predetermined position and captures an
`
`image around the vehicle, and a function based on a distance measurement sensor that measures a
`
`distance from the vehicle to an object around the vehicle.
`
`However, Freiburger teaches the vehicle evaluation device (Fig. 4, Par.
`
`[0028], a
`
`perimeter detection module 54) evaluates a function (Fig. 5, Par.
`
`[0035]— [0036], Step 86
`
`determine whether an object is in the peripheral field of view upon receiving (Step 80) and
`
`processing the data and signals from the plurality of sensors (step 82)) based on a camera Which
`
`is mounted to a vehicle installed at a predetermined position and captures an image around
`
`the vehicle and a function based on a distance measurement sensor that measures a distance
`
`from the vehicle to an object around the vehicle (Par. [0023] the rear sensor 18 of the plurality
`
`of sensors, as shown in FIG. 1, includes a rear camera 34 and a rear set of radar sensors 36 that are
`
`configured to monitor a rear field of view 38 substantially rearward the vehicle 12 for objects).
`
`References Bond and Freiburger are considered to be analogous art because they relate to
`
`vehicle evaluation. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention would recognize the advantage of further customizing and configuring
`
`the output signal generated from the detection system as suggested by Freiburger in the invention
`
`of Bond for evaluating safety measures (i.e. testing of sensors) (See Freiburger, Par. [0038]).
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Bond in view of Freiburger teaches Claim 2. While Freiburger
`
`teaches the controller transmits an evaluation start signal that notifies a start of evaluation
`
`of the functions based on the camera and the distance measurement sensor to the vehicle
`
`(Fig. 5, Par. [0035]—[0036], Step 86 determine whether an object is in the peripheral field of view
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/ 124,693
`Art Unit: 2489
`
`Page 15
`
`upon receiving (Step 80) and processing the data and signals from the plurality of sensors (step
`
`82)), Bond further teaches starts a control to change, according to the position of the first
`
`projection target, an image to be projected on the first projection target (Par. [0046], the
`
`simulation software is such as to drive the computer's image generator and thus the projectors 22,
`
`24, 26 to display on the viewing screen arrangement 20 realistic three—dimensional virtual front
`
`(on front screen portion 28) and side (on side screen portions 30 and 32) scenic imagery of front—
`
`on and passing scenery (i.e. changes the image) as though the driver was racing the car 12 (i.e.
`
`according to the position of the screens)).
`
`It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would recognize the advantage of further customizing and configuring the output signal generated
`
`from the detection system as suggested by Freiburger in the invention of Bond for evaluating safety
`
`measures (i.e. testing of sensors) (See Freiburger, Par. [0038]).
`
`Regarding Claim 7, Bond in view of Freiburger teaches Claim 2. Bond further teaches
`
`further comprising a wheel receiving base on which a wheel of the vehicle installed at the
`
`predetermined position is placed and which is rotatable according to a rotation of the wheel
`
`(Fig. 1 and 2, Par. [0027], a platform 42 and includes supports in the form of pairs of rollers 44 for
`
`supporting and rotatably engaging the rear wheels 46 and front wheels 47 of the car 12).
`
`Regarding Claim 15, Bond in view of Freiburger teaches Claim 2. Bond further teaches
`
`the first projection target includes a plurality of members (Par. [0024], projectors 22, 24, 26
`
`of a visual display system) which are mov