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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response, filed 9/23/2025, to the last office action has been entered. Please see below for updated interpretations and rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of Wende does not disclose the newly amended claims of detecting a stop line in a current frame of an input image in a first environment and a second environment different from the first one. As noted in the applicant’s originally filed specification, there are two items to be noted with this new limitation: 1) a first environment and a second environment cannot be in the same frame. Paragraph [0141] notes that “the object detection device 210 includes at least two modules for respectively recognizing the stop line depending on a general environment and a harsh environment. The general environment refers to an illuminance environment in which the camera can normally acquire an image of the stop line, and the harsh environment refers to an illuminance environment in which the camera cannot normally acquire an image of the stop line.” Based on this, a normal environment is not the same, and thus cannot happen at the same time, as a harsh environment. 2) It appears the applicant was meaning to say detecting one of a first environment or a second environment different from the first environment. This would appear to be more in line with the specification.
Given how the claim is presently worded, the examiner will interpret it to be one or the other, but would recommend adding a limitation to recognize a first environment, recognize a second environment, and then detect one or the other. This would force the examiner to find a reference for each of the environments to be recognized even if only one if detected.
Additionally, applicant is continuing to argue that Wende does not disclose all features as claimed. The examiner respectfully disagrees since the claim (as seen from drawings such as Fig. 9) requires only one scenario the ability to take place in a given instance; both cannot be performed simultaneously. This is further supported above where a normal environment cannot happen at the same time as a harsh environment. Based on this, the prior art of Wende is maintained and does meet the limitations of the prior art.
It is noted that because the amended claims are identical to the invention claimed in the earlier application and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim discloses “detecting valid stop line data in a current frame of an input image in a first environment and a second environment different from the first environment”. The closest support in the originally filed specification is found in Par. [00141], “In the present disclosure, the object detection device 210 includes at least two modules for respectively recognizing the stop line depending on a general environment and a harsh environment.” Thus, the specification makes it clear that the environments are separately recognized, especially since they cannot happen simultaneously. For purposes of examination in their current format, the examiner will interpret the claims to be detecting in a first or second environment.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over CN. 105291982 A Zhang, Wende (hereinafter, Wende)
Regarding claim 1, Wende discloses a method of recognizing a stop line in an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising:
detecting valid stop line data in a current frame of an input image in a first environment and a second environment different from the first environment (Based on the explanation above, this is being interpreted to be only in the first environment - Wende P5 L24-26 discloses an algorithm that tracks the movement of the present frame in a stop line position);
in response to the valid stop line data being detected in the current frame in the first environment, calculating a stop line area in the current frame using a tracking algorithm and tracking the stop line in a next frame (Wende P5 L24-26 discloses an algorithm that tracks the movement of the present frame in a stop line position and subsequent picture)
and in response to the valid stop line data not being detected in the first environment, inputting the current frame as being in the second environment to a trained neural network model and performing a redetection of the stop line data (This scenario cannot take place simultaneously as the alternate scenario. The stop line data cannot be detected in two distinct environments simultaneously; thus, Wende previously disclosed the stop line data being detected in the first environment, See P5, L24-26, which voids the stop line data not being detected).
Regarding claim 2, in response to the neural network model detecting the stop line data in the current frame, transmitting the detected stop line data to the tracking algorithm, and tracking, by the tracking algorithm, the stop line in the next frame based on the transmitted stop line data (This limitation is based on a scenario not taking place. This limitation happens when the stop line is not detected in the next frame, and is input to the neural network, See Figure 9, step S6; thus, Wende previously disclosed the stop line data being detected, See P5, L24-26, which voids the stop line data not being detected).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the neural network model is a Resnet-RRC model (This limitation is based on a scenario not taking place. This limitation happens when the stop line is not detected in the next frame, and is input to the neural network, See Figure 9, step S6; thus, Wende previously disclosed the stop line data being detected, See P5, L24-26, which voids the stop line data not being detected).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN. 105291982 A Zhang, Wende (hereinafter, Wende) in view "Z. Kalal et al., "Forward-backward error: Automatic detection of tracking failures."2010 20th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, pages 2756-2759. IEEE, 2010"
Regarding claim 3, Wende discloses a tracking algorithm (Wende P5 L24-26 discloses an algorithm that tracks the movement of the present frame in a stop line position);
However, Wende does not disclose where Kalal teaches wherein the tracking algorithm is a median flow tracker (Kalal Section 5 discloses tracking algorithms, specifically the median flow tracker, which the tracker accepts pairs of images It, It+1 and bounding boxes, the number of points within the bounding boxes are tracked and their error is estimated and the outliers are filtered out, the remaining points is the estimated bounding box motion.)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of one of the ordinary skill in the art to combine the tracking of stop line data in multiple frames using a tracking algorithm of Wende and the median flow tracker which tracks between frames of Kalal in order to efficiently filter out outliers to improve accuracy.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Vincent Rudolph whose telephone number is (571)272-8243. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
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.
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights