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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/02/2026 has been entered and made of record.
The application has pending claims 1-6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive; the Examiner agrees that CHOI does not disclose a CCD or CMOS imaging sensor. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of TAKANO, in combination with CHOI and Watanabe, as Takano does disclose a CCD and CMOS imaging sensor (see TAKANO ¶64). Therefore, this action is made NON-FINAL.
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 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuko TAKANO US-20220383644-A1, hereinafter TAKANO, in further view of EUN-JIN CHOI CN-104700114-A, hereinafter CHOI, and Genki Watanabe JP-6972798-B2, hereinafter Watanabe.
As per claim 1, TAKANO discloses an image processing device of a person detection system mounted on a moving body (see TAKANO ¶62, wherein an object detection device, which can detect pedestrians as disclosed in ¶74, on top of a car, i.e., moving body, is disclosed), wherein the image processing device is configured to:detect, in image data obtained from a camera, an area of the image data in which an obstacle appears, the camera comprising a CCD image sensor or a CMOS image sensor (see TANAKO ¶64, wherein the imaging element in the stereo camera comprises a CCD and a CMOS image sensor. See further TANAKO ¶74, wherein the detection device detects an object, such as a pedestrian or vehicle, on the road surface in the first and second images);obtain a disparity by obtaining a difference between a first image data and a second image data, obtained from the camera, corresponding to a same feature point of the obstacle (see TAKANO ¶63, wherein a stereo camera having parallax is disclosed. See further ¶102, wherein a disparity is a difference between a position of the same subject, which includes an object, in the first and second images. An object on the road can include a pedestrian as disclosed in ¶74. The control unit compares the feature of each pixel, i.e., feature point, in the first and second image disclosed in ¶101).
However, TAKANO fails to explicitly disclose where CHOI teaches:perform a center area-width determination process (see CHOI ¶47-50, wherein the center is determined to be (m + h) / 2);and determine whether the obstacle in the area is a person by comparing a post-adjustment area obtained after the center area-width determination process is performed with dictionary data (see CHOI ¶50-51, wherein the area width height normalization is performed on the image using the pedestrian center. See further CHOI ¶38 and 55, wherein feature extraction is performed to determine if the obstacle in the pedestrian candidate area is a pedestrian using the pedestrian database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify TAKANO’s device by using CHOI’s teaching by including a center area-width determination process to the obstacle in the area in order to further clarify if the obstacle in the area is a person.
Although TAKANO, in combination with CHOI, discloses the center area-width adjustment process (see CHOI ¶50-51), TAKANO, in combination with CHOI, however fails to explicitly disclose that this center area-width adjustment process is a center-of-gravity area-width adjustment. Watanabe teaches:obtain a disparity by obtaining a difference between a first image data and a second image data, obtained from the camera (see Watanabe page 8/38 and FIGS. 5-6, wherein the disparity image is obtained from the real U map which is derived from the parallax image using points (x, y, d), see Watanabe page 6/38, which is obtained by a difference parallax value d as disclosed on the top of Watanabe page 3/38. These images are acquired from a stereo camera as disclosed on the bottom of page 2/38 and FIG. 2);perform a center-of-gravity area-width adjustment process (see Watanabe bottom of page 10/38 and FIG. 19, wherein the center-of-gravity adjustment is disclosed) in which a position of center of gravity of the obstacle in the area of the image data is estimated (see Watanabe bottom of page 10/38 and top of page 11/38 and FIG. 19, wherein the center of gravity of the target object is calculated) and a width of the area of the image data is adjusted based on the position of gravity (see Watanabe bottom of page 10/38, wherein the width Xo is calculated with respect with the center coordinates of the target object), the position of the center of gravity of the obstacle being estimated based on a portion of an image coordinate system in which the disparity is concentrated (see Watanabe bottom of page 10/38 and top of page 11/38, wherein the center of gravity for the target object is calculated in the disparity image. See prior page 8/38, wherein the real U-map detects islands through binarization with connectivity to identify the object. These binarized islands are set as the object area, i.e., where the disparity is concentrated); andcontrol the moving body based on the determination (see Watanabe page 2/38, wherein the moving body is controlled based on the results of the image analysis and object tracking, i.e., the determination).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify TAKANO’s, in combination with CHOI, device by using Watanabe’s teaching by including the center of gravity area-width adjustment process to TAKANO’s, in combination with CHOI, center area-width adjustment process in order to improve the focus on the obstacle with respect to its center of gravity.
As per claim 6, the rationale used in claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, TAKANO discloses a memory that is configured to execute a program (see TAKANO ¶75, wherein a memory is disclosed).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKANO, in combination with CHOI and Watanabe, in further view of NAGAOKA SHINJI JP-2004135034-A, hereinafter SHINJI.
As per claim 2 TAKANO, in combination with CHOI and Watanabe, fails to explicitly disclose where SHINJI teaches:the image processing device of the person detection system according to claim 1, wherein the dictionary data includes upper body comparison data and whole-body comparison data, the image processing device is configured to: determine whether the area meets an upper body detection process condition that the obstacle in the area is distanced from a road surface within a predetermined range from the camera (see SHINJI ¶31, wherein the collision determination process determines an object approaches a distance. See also SHINJI ¶37, wherein the distance between the host vehicle and the object is disclosed, as well as the camera obtaining the binarized object features. See further ¶38, wherein the upper end, i.e., upper body, coordinates of the binarized object is detected); perform, for the area that meets the upper body detection process condition, an upper body detection process in which the post-adjustment area after the center-of-gravity area-width adjustment process is performed for the area of the image data is compared with the upper body comparison data to determine whether the obstacle in the area is a person (see SHINJI ¶61-63, wherein the binarized object on the road is determined whether or not to be a pedestrian using the center-of-gravity threshold values along with the aspect ratio of the circumscribed rectangle, i.e., post-adjustment area); and perform, for the area that does not meet the upper body detection process condition, a whole-body detection process in which the area of the image data is compared with the whole-body comparison data to determine whether the obstacle in the area is a person (see SHINJI ¶63-64, wherein if the determined object is a pedestrian or if the thresholds are not reached, the object is determined to be an artificial structure or simply not to be a warning target).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify TAKANO’s, in combination with CHOI and Watanabe, by using SHINJI’s teaching by including the upper body detection process to the dictionary data in order to further improve how the determination step is performed by observing further including the upper body observation of the pedestrian.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKANO, in combination with CHOI and Watanabe, in further view of TOKI Ryosuke WO-2020129517-A1, hereinafter TOKI.
As per claim 4, TAKANO, in combination with CHOI and Watanabe, fails to explicitly disclose where TOKI teaches: the image processing device of the person detection system according to claim 1, whereinthe image processing device performs a width adjustment process for the post-adjustment area (see TOKI page 6/37, wherein the detection area is widened. See further middle of page 7/37, wherein the identification area is resized for the final identification area, i.e., post-adjustment area, is disclosed), and in the width adjustment process, the image processing device performs at least one of a process in which a width of the area of the image data increases when the width of the area is equal to or smaller than a predetermined lower limit value (see TOKI top of page 6/37 and FIGS. 11A-B, wherein the correction unit widens the correction in response to the detected distance is equal or less than the distance set value, i.e., limit value.), and a process in which the width of the post-adjustment area of the image data decreases when the width of the area is equal to or greater than a predetermined upper limit value (see TOKI lower of page 6/37 and FIGS. 11C-D, wherein the case of high beams, the head is likely to be included and the image correction amount is lowered).
Although TOKI does not explicitly disclose a post-adjustment area, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one skilled in the art to include TOKI’s width adjustment to the post-adjustment area of the prior claims since TOKI does include an adjusted area (see TOKI middle of page 7/39, wherein a final identification area is disclosed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify TAKANO’s, in combination with CHOI and Watanabe, by using TOKI’s teaching by including a limit value in to the width adjustment process in order to improve the post-adjustment area by restricting the area around the obstacle.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKANO, in combination with CHOI, Watanabe, and SHINJI, in further view of TOKI.
As per claim 5, CHOI, in combination with Watanabe, TAKANO, and SHINJI, fails to explicitly disclose where TOKI teaches: the image processing device of the person detection system according to claim 2, wherein the image processing device detects a height of an upper end of the area from the road surface (see TOKI top of page 6/39, wherein the upper area of the identification area, i.e., the road, is disclosed. See also TOKI page 7/39, wherein the height of the upper part of the detection frame is disclosed), and in the upper body detection process, a dimension of the adjustment area in a height direction of the area of the image data is corrected in accordance with the height of the upper end of the area from the road surface (see TOKI page 6/39, wherein the identification area correction unit performs correction based on the detected distance range and the upper end direction when locating the upper portion of the three-dimensional object. See further middle of page 7/37, wherein the final identification area, i.e., post-adjustment area, is disclosed).
Although TOKI does not explicitly disclose a post-adjustment area, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one skilled in the art to include TOKI’s width adjustment to the post-adjustment area of the prior claims since TOKI does include an adjusted area (see TOKI middle of page 7/39, wherein a final identification area is disclosed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify TAKANO’s, in combination with CHOI, Watanabe, SHINJI, teaching by using TOKI teaching by including a height correction to the post-adjustment area in order to correct the ratios so as to not leave out a part of the body in the post-adjustment area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights