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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 recites “each pixel” which Examiners suggests amending to “each pixel in the original image”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 5 recites “each pixel” which Examiners suggests amending to “each pixel in the original image”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-17, and 19 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first information" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which first information is being referred to (since first information of each pixel is disclosed previously, meaning multiple first information). Examiner suggests amending to “the first information of each pixel in the original image”, and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the first information of the pixel" in Line 1, “the pixel” in Line 3, and “the first information of the pixel” in Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as it is unclear as to which pixel is being referred to and thus, which first information is being referred to. Examiner suggests amending to clarify the limitations, for example, amending the limitations to, “first information of a specific pixel” (deleting “the” before “first”), “the specific pixel”, and “the first information of the specific pixel”, respectively.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the pixel" in Lines1-3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which pixel is being referred to (since both claim 1 and claim 3 recite a pixel). Examiner suggests amending the claims to clarify the limitation.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lane line node located at a lower right corner" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a lane line node located at a lower right corner. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “a lane line node located at a lower right corner” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lane line node located at a lower right corner" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a lane line node located at a lower right corner. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “a lane line node located at a lower right corner” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the lane line node located at a lower right corner" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a lane line node located at a lower right corner. Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “a lane line node located at a lower right corner” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 12 depends on claim 9 and thus is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "each pixel" in Line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear what pixels are being referred to (ie. pixels from where, since there is no earlier mention of pixels). Examiner suggests amending the limitation to “each pixel in the original image” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, and 17 depend on claim 2 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first information" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which first information is being referred to (since first information of each pixel is disclosed previously, meaning multiple first information). Examiner suggests amending to “the first information of each pixel in the original image”, and has interpreted the limitation as such.
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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu (US 2020/0026930).
With regards to claim 1, Gu discloses a lane line recognition method, comprising:
extracting a basic feature of an original image (Para. 0136 lines 1-6, "lane line pixel feature point" "lane line feature map");
recognizing at least one lane line node in the original image by using the basic feature of the original image (Para. 0143 lines 1-4, "superpixel feature reference point");
extracting a local feature from the basic feature of the original image by using the at least one lane line node (Para. 0146 lines 1-3, 0147 lines 1-10, "similar features");
fusing the basic feature and the local feature (Para. 0148 lines 1-3, "combining" "superpixel"); and
recognizing a lane line in the original image based on a fused result (Para. 0151 lines 1-3, 0152 lines 1-4, 0170 lines 1-3, "target lane line").
With regards to claim 15, Gu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein recognizing the at least one lane line node in the original image by using the basic feature of the original image comprises:
determining node distribution information corresponding to the original image by using the basic feature of the original image (Para. 0143 lines 1-4, 0145 lines 1-12, "lane line feature map" "superpixel feature reference point");
wherein the node distribution information represents the at least one lane line node in the original image and comprises a type of each pixel (Para. 0145 lines 1-15, "superpixel feature reference point" "white pixel points" "black region").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu (US 2020/0026930) in view of Zhao et al. (CN 113762004, see translated version).
With regards to claim 18, Gu discloses an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (Para. 0186 lines 1-7, "DSP") to execute operations comprising:
extracting a basic feature of an original image (Para. 0136 lines 1-6, "lane line pixel feature point" "lane line feature map");
recognizing at least one lane line node in the original image by using the basic feature of the original image (Para. 0143 lines 1-4, "superpixel feature reference point");
extracting a local feature from the basic feature of the original image by using the at least one lane line node (Para. 0146 lines 1-3, 0147 lines 1-10, "similar features");
fusing the basic feature and the local feature (Para. 0148 lines 1-3, "combining" "superpixel"); and
recognizing a lane line in the original image based on a fused result (Para. 0151 lines 1-3, 0152 lines 1-4, 0170 lines 1-3, "target lane line").
Gu does not explicitly teach the electronic device comprising a memory connected in communication with the at least one processor, wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor, and the instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, enables the at least one processor to execute the operations.
However, Zhao et al. discloses a lane line detection device that recognizes a lane line in an image (Para. n0001 lines 1-3, n0064 lines 1-5, "lane line detection"), where the lane line detection device comprises a processor and a memory connected in communication with the processor, where the memory stores an instruction executable by the processor, which, when executed by the processor, enables the processor to execute the lane line detection, which allows for performing the lane line detection automatically instead of manually inputting each step to be executed one at a time (Para. n0090 lines 1-7, n0091 line 1, n0093 lines 1-11, "processor" "memory" "program").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of a detection device comprising a processor and a memory connected in communication with the processor, where the memory stores an instruction executable by the processor, which, when executed by the processor, enables the processor to execute lane line detection operations as taught by Zhao et al. into the electronic device of Gu. The motivation for this would be to allow for executing the operations automatically instead of manually executing each operation at a time.
With regards to claim 20, it recites the apparatus of claim 18 as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer instruction thereon, wherein the computer instruction is used to cause a computer to perform the functions. Zhao et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which allows for performing the operations automatically instead of manually performing each step (Para. n0090 lines 1-7, n0091 line 1, n0093 lines 1-11, "memory" "computer-readable storage medium"). Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 18 is equally applicable to claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 6, Gu (US 2020/0026930) discloses extracting the local feature from the basic feature of the original image by using the lane line node, however, there is no mention of constructing a plurality of local boxes by using the lane line node and segmenting the basic feature of the original image by using the plurality of local boxes, to obtain the local feature. Maheshwari et al. (US 2021/0206380) discloses constructing a plurality of local boxes using the lane line node to extract the local feature, however, there is no mention of segmenting the basic feature of the original image by using the plurality of local boxes to obtain the local feature. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
Claims 2-5, 7-14, 16, 17, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claims 2 and 19, Gu (US 2020/0026930) discloses determining lane line coding information of the original image based on the fused result and recognizing the lane line in the original image by using the lane line coding information, where the lane line coding information comprises first information of each lane line node, and the first information comprises a positional relationship of a lane line node and an adjacent lane line node, however, this is not the same as the lane line coding information comprising first information of each pixel in the original image, where the first information of each pixel comprises a positional relationship of the pixel and an adjacent lane line node. Maheshwari et al. (US 2021/0206380) discloses determining lane line coding information of the original image based on the fused result and recognizing the lane line in the original image by using the lane line coding information, where the lane line coding information comprises first information, however, there is no mention of the lane line coding information of the original image comprising first information of each pixel in the original image, where the first information comprises at least one of whether the pixel is the lane line node, a quantity of adjacent lane line nodes of the pixel, or a positional relationship of the pixel and an adjacent lane line node. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17, they are dependent on claim 2.
With regards to claims 9 and 12, they are dependent on claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672