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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8 January, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 8 January, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 8 January, 2026 has been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites “a selected radar measurement value” which renders the claim indefinite, because the scope of the claim would not be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is unclear if this feature refers to the same or different from the “the selected radar measurement values” previously recited in claim 1 which claim 5 depends on.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1:
Claim 1:
A method of determining a location of a pedestrian, the method comprising: obtaining, from a camera, a plurality of images of an outside of a vehicle and obtaining, from a radar, a plurality of radar measurement values of the outside of the vehicle; determining a pedestrian object included in the plurality of images; setting a plurality of object size candidate values for the pedestrian object, wherein each of the plurality of object size candidate values is a possible actual size of the pedestrian object, and determining longitudinal location candidate values for the plurality of object size candidate values, respectively; selecting radar measurement values located within a preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values, in a case in which a number of radar measurement values located within the preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values is greater than a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value; and determining a final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and is eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites “A method of determining a location of a pedestrian, the method comprising: obtaining, from a camera, a plurality of images of an outside of a vehicle and obtaining, from a radar, a plurality of radar measurement values of the outside of the vehicle; determining a pedestrian object included in the plurality of images; setting a plurality of object size candidate values for the pedestrian object, wherein each of the plurality of object size candidate values is a possible actual size of the pedestrian object, and determining longitudinal location candidate values for the plurality of object size candidate values, respectively; selecting radar measurement values located within a preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values, in a case in which a number of radar measurement values located within the preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values is greater than a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value; and determining a final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values”.
The focus of the claim (i.e., “determining a pedestrian object included in the plurality of images; setting a plurality of object size candidate values for the pedestrian object, wherein each of the plurality of object size candidate values is a possible actual size of the pedestrian object, and determining longitudinal location candidate values for the plurality of object size candidate values, respectively”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “determining a pedestrian object included in the plurality of images; setting a plurality of object size candidate values for the pedestrian object, wherein each of the plurality of object size candidate values is a possible actual size of the pedestrian object, and determining longitudinal location candidate values for the plurality of object size candidate values, respectively” are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “obtaining, from a camera, a plurality of images of an outside of a vehicle and obtaining, from a radar, a plurality of radar measurement values of the outside of the vehicle […] selecting radar measurement values located within a preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values, in a case in which a number of radar measurement values located within the preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values is greater than a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value; and determining a final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “a camera; a vehicle; a radar” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied. Furthermore, additional limitation of “selecting radar measurement values located within a preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values, in a case in which a number of radar measurement values located within the preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values is greater than a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value; and determining a final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values” contains contingent claim language. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The limitation(s) of “obtaining, from a camera, a plurality of images of an outside of a vehicle and obtaining, from a radar, a plurality of radar measurement values of the outside of the vehicle […] selecting radar measurement values located within a preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values, in a case in which a number of radar measurement values located within the preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values is greater than a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value; and determining a final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim 1 is ineligible.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 2-5 and 7-10 recite a series of steps and therefore, fall under a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-5 and 7-10 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the device of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 7-10 are ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-5, and 7-10 are not patent-eligible.
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, 3-4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (US 2022/0366700 A1 “ENDO”), in view of Takano et al. (US 2022/0383643 A1 “TAKANO”).
Regarding claim 1, ENDO discloses (Examiner’s note: What ENDO does not explicitly disclose is ) a method of determining a location of a pedestrian (an object recognition device 1 acquires sensor information and recognizes an object (such as a pedestrian), and calculates a distance to the object [0030]), the method comprising:
obtaining, from a camera, a plurality of images of an outside of a vehicle (image acquisition unit 101 acquires image data captured by the camera [0035]); (the object recognition device 1 is mounted on a vehicle [0045])
and obtaining, from a radar, a plurality of radar measurement values of the outside of the vehicle (sensor information acquisition unit 100 acquires and collects sensor information of a target sensor. Here, the target sensor is a camera, a millimeter wave, a laser radar, a far-infrared camera, or the like [0034])
determining a pedestrian object included in the plurality of images (an object recognition device 1 acquires sensor information obtained by sensing (monitoring or recognizing) a periphery from a sensor, acquires an image obtained by imaging the periphery from a camera, recognizes an object (such as a pedestrian) present in the periphery on the basis of the acquired information [0030])
setting a plurality of object size in the part size calculation processing (R116), the actual size (actual dimension) of the part region detected in the luminance analysis processing (R114) is measured with reference to the distance image generated in the distance image generation processing (R112). Here, the actual size is a height (longitudinal dimension) or a width (lateral dimension) of the part region [0057])
and determining longitudinal location in the distance estimation processing (R118), the distance to the pedestrian F101 as an object is estimated on the basis of the actual size of the part region acquired in the part size calculation processing (R116) and the size of the part region detected in the part detection processing (R117) on the image. A method of estimating the distance will be described. Assuming that S is the actual size of the part region acquired in the part size calculation processing (R116), that s is the size of the part region detected in the part detection processing (R117) on the image, that f is the focal length of the camera, that w is the pixel size of the image, and that Z is the depth distance to be estimated, Z=(f*S)/(s*w) is established. In the distance estimation processing (R118), the depth distance Z is estimated on the basis of S, s, f, and w [0058])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TAKANO relates to object detection device mounted on an automobile. Specifically, TAKANO teaches that the control unit 24 executes the processing of steps S618 to S622 to calculate a height T4 as a first candidate height and calculate the height T3 as a second candidate height. In step S107, the control unit 24 determines which of the first candidate height and the second candidate height to acquire as the height of the object [0201].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ENDO to include the teachings of TAKANO, because doing so would improve object detection performance, as recognized by TAKANO. In addition, both of the prior art references, ENDO and TAKANO, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection.
ENDO/ TAKANO discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose selecting radar measurement values located within a preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values; in a case in which a number of radar measurement values located within the preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values is greater than a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value; and determining a final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values.
It is noted that claim 1 recites a method of determining a location of a pedestrian. Limitation “selecting radar measurement values located within a preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values; in a case in which a number of radar measurement values located within the preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values is greater than a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value; and determining a final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e. “selecting radar measurement values located within a preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values […] and determining a final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values”) if a first condition (i.e. “in a case in which a number of radar measurement values located within the preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values is greater than a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 3, ENDO/ TAKANO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of object size candidate values are values into which a possible height range of a pedestrian is divided by a preset interval (the part region and the height information from the road surface are illustrated at equal intervals, but the height information may not be at equal intervals [ENDO 0080 & FIG. 15]); (the part region on the image may be divided according to the size, or may be cut out small in the vertical direction by one pixel [ENDO 0081]).
Regarding claim 4, ENDO/ TAKANO discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the determining of the longitudinal location candidate values comprises determining the longitudinal location candidate values by using the plurality of object size candidate values, pixel values of the pedestrian object, and a focal length of the camera (the distance can be calculated from the positional relationship, the focal length, and pixel size information of the target camera of the sensor information acquisition unit 100 and the image acquisition unit 101 [ENDO 0038 & 0058], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, ENDO/ TAKANO discloses the method of claim 1,
The Examiner noted that if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim. In this case, claim 7 relies on contingency that does not need to be carried out, that is, “determining of the final longitudinal location value”.
Furthermore, it is noted that claim 7 recites a method of determining a location of a pedestrian. Limitation “in a case in which the Doppler velocity is within a possible speed range of a pedestrian, determining the final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e., “determining the final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values”) if a first condition (i.e., “in a case in which the Doppler velocity is within a possible speed range of a pedestrian”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 10, ENDO/ TAKANO discloses the method of claim 1,
The Examiner noted that if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim. In this case, claim 8 relies on contingency that does not need to be carried out, that is, “the selected radar measurement values”.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENDO, in view of TAKANO, and further in view of Ikram et al. (US 2016/0103213 A1 “IKRAM”).
Regarding claim 2, ENDO/ TAKANO discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of images comprise a previous image and a current image (part regions similar to each other in the past frame and the current frame are detected [ENDO 0081]), and the determining of the pedestrian object comprises: obtaining part regions similar to each other in the past frame and the current frame are detected [ENDO 0081]); obtaining second location information of a second pedestrian object that is recognized in the current image (the distance to the pedestrian is estimated from the height of the part region detected in the current frame from the road surface and the position of the part region on the image estimated in the multi-part scanning processing (R307A) [ENDO 0083]); and determining whether the first pedestrian object and the second pedestrian object are the same pedestrian object, based on a similarity by performing detection using part information (similar part region) having similar appearance in the past frame and the current frame, it is possible to stably detect even in a case where the appearance of the part temporally changes, and to accurately estimate the distance from the own vehicle to an object such as a pedestrian [ENDO 0084]).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, IKRAM relates to a method for tracking objects in three dimensions in a radar system. Specifically, IKRAM teaches that the object tracking component 104 includes functionality to track detected objects over time. In reference to the method of FIG. 3, the object tracking component 104 receives the estimated spherical coordinates, i.e., the range, the elevation, and the azimuth, the estimated range rate, and the corresponding variances for each of the detected objects in each frame of radar signal data and uses this information to track the objects over time. An extended Kalman filter tracks each object using the estimated spherical coordinates of the object as well as the estimated range rate and the respective corresponding variances of the estimated values [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ENDO to include the teachings of IKRAM, because doing so would improve system tracking of objects in a driving environment, in order to avoid a collision or to reduce collateral damage, as recognized by IKRAM. In addition, both of the prior art references, ENDO and IKRAM, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection and tracking.
Regarding claim 5, ENDO/ TAKANO/ IKRAM discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: obtaining a first final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object for the previous image; obtaining a selected radar measurement value for the current image (by performing detection using part information (similar part region) having similar appearance in the past frame and the current frame, it is possible to stably detect even in a case where the appearance of the part temporally changes, and to accurately estimate the distance from the own vehicle to an object such as a pedestrian [ENDO 0084]); It is further noted that claim 5 recites a method of determining a location of a pedestrian. Limitation “in a case in which the first final longitudinal location value and the selected radar measurement value are within a preset distance, determining a second final longitudinal location value for the current image, based on the selected radar measurement value” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e., “determining a second final longitudinal location value for the current image, based on the selected radar measurement value”) if a first condition (i.e., “in a case in which the first final longitudinal location value and the selected radar measurement value are within a preset distance”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENDO, in view of TAKANO, and further in view of Saez et al. (US 2020/0380273 A1 “SAEZ”).
Regarding claim 8, ENDO/ TAKANO discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SAEZ relates to a method for identifying distracted pedestrians. Specifically, SAEZ teaches that attention-evaluation unit 107 may also detect a pedestrian's posture. The postures of the pedestrian may include at least one of an orientation of the pedestrian, an angle between legs, a relation between hands and legs, a static, walking, or running state, and a pedestrian's height [0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ENDO to include the teachings of SAEZ, because doing so would quickly and accurately estimate the pedestrian's awareness state, as recognized by SAEZ. In addition, both of the prior art references, ENDO and SAEZ, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, pedestrian detection.
ENDO/ TAKANO/ SAEZ discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose calculating a Doppler velocity based on the selected radar measurement values; and in a case in which the Doppler velocity is greater than or equal to a preset value or the intermediate state of the pedestrian object is 'moving', determining a final state of the pedestrian object as 'moving'.
The Examiner noted that if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim. In this case, claim 8 relies on contingency that does not need to be carried out, that is, “the selected radar measurement values”.
Furthermore, it is noted that claim 8 recites a method of determining a location of a pedestrian. Limitation “in a case in which the Doppler velocity is greater than or equal to a preset value or the intermediate state of the pedestrian object is 'moving', determining a final state of the pedestrian object as 'moving'” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e., “determining a final state of the pedestrian object as 'moving'”) if a first condition (i.e., “in a case in which the Doppler velocity is greater than or equal to a preset value or the intermediate state of the pedestrian object is 'moving'”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Regarding claim 9, ENDO/ TAKANO discloses the method of claim 8,
The Examiner noted that if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim. In this case, claim 9 relies on contingency that does not need to be carried out, that is, “the Doppler velocity”.
Furthermore, it is noted that if the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim. In this case, claim 9 relies on contingency that does not need to be carried out, that is, “in a case in which the Doppler velocity is less than the preset value and the intermediate state of the pedestrian object is 'stopped', determining the final state of the pedestrian object as 'stopped'”. It is further noted that claim 9 recites a method of determining a location of a pedestrian. Limitation “in a case in which the Doppler velocity is less than the preset value and the intermediate state of the pedestrian object is 'stopped', determining the final state of the pedestrian object as 'stopped'” contains contingent claim language. See MPEP 2111.04. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. In this case, the method claim requires step A (i.e., “determining the final state of the pedestrian object as 'stopped'”) if a first condition (i.e., “in a case in which the Doppler velocity is less than the preset value and the intermediate state of the pedestrian object is 'stopped', determining the final state of the pedestrian object as 'stopped'”) happens. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of a method claim.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENDO, in view of TAKANO, and further in view of Woodington et al. (US 2005/0179582 A1 “WOODINGTON”).
Regarding claim 11, ENDO discloses an apparatus for determining a location of a pedestrian (an object recognition device 1 acquires sensor information obtained by sensing (monitoring or recognizing) a periphery from a sensor, acquires an image obtained by imaging the periphery from a camera, recognizes an object (such as a pedestrian) present in the periphery on the basis of the acquired information, and calculates a distance to the object [0030]), the apparatus comprising: a memory storing at least one program; and a processor configured to execute the at least one program to perform an operation (a computer, a memory, a storage device, and the like, and the computer operates as various functional units by executing a control program stored in the memory or the like [0032]), wherein the processor is further configured to
obtain, from a camera, a plurality of images of an outside of a vehicle (image acquisition unit 101 acquires image data captured by the camera [0035]); (the object recognition device 1 is mounted on a vehicle [0045])
obtain, from a radar, a plurality of radar measurement values of the outside of the vehicle (sensor information acquisition unit 100 acquires and collects sensor information of a target sensor. Here, the target sensor is a camera, a millimeter wave, a laser radar, a far-infrared camera, or the like [0034])
determine a pedestrian object included in the plurality of images (an object recognition device 1 acquires sensor information obtained by sensing (monitoring or recognizing) a periphery from a sensor, acquires an image obtained by imaging the periphery from a camera, recognizes an object (such as a pedestrian) present in the periphery on the basis of the acquired information [0030])
set a plurality of object size in the part size calculation processing (R116), the actual size (actual dimension) of the part region detected in the luminance analysis processing (R114) is measured with reference to the distance image generated in the distance image generation processing (R112). Here, the actual size is a height (longitudinal dimension) or a width (lateral dimension) of the part region [0057])
determine longitudinal location in the distance estimation processing (R118), the distance to the pedestrian F101 as an object is estimated on the basis of the actual size of the part region acquired in the part size calculation processing (R116) and the size of the part region detected in the part detection processing (R117) on the image. A method of estimating the distance will be described. Assuming that S is the actual size of the part region acquired in the part size calculation processing (R116), that s is the size of the part region detected in the part detection processing (R117) on the image, that f is the focal length of the camera, that w is the pixel size of the image, and that Z is the depth distance to be estimated, Z=(f*S)/(s*w) is established. In the distance estimation processing (R118), the depth distance Z is estimated on the basis of S, s, f, and w [0058])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TAKANO teaches that the control unit 24 executes the processing of steps S618 to S622 to calculate a height T4 as a first candidate height and calculate the height T3 as a second candidate height. In step S107, the control unit 24 determines which of the first candidate height and the second candidate height to acquire as the height of the object [0201].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ENDO to include the teachings of TAKANO, because doing so would improve object detection performance, as recognized by TAKANO.
ENDO, as modified by TAKANO, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose to select radar measurement values located within a preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values; in a case in which a number of radar measurement values located within the preset distance from the plurality of longitudinal location candidate values is greater than a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, wherein the first threshold value is less than the second threshold value; and determine a final longitudinal location value of the pedestrian object, based on the selected radar measurement values.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WOODINGTON relates to a radar system associated with an automobile. Specifically, WOODINGTON teaches that in step 574, range thresholds are established at each beam pointing angle in order to define the detection zone. Thus, at a given beam pointing angle, range detections that are either too far or too near to the SOD system to fall within the detection zone are excluded by way of pre-established range thresholds. Echo magnitude window thresholds are also established in step 574. Only object detections that produce echoes above a lower threshold and below an upper threshold, i.e. within the magnitude window, are considered valid. An echo that is below the lower threshold could be caused by system noise rather than an object or target. An echo that is above the upper threshold could be caused by an interfering radar source, such as a radar transmission from another vehicle. Thus, both range and amplitude thresholds are established at step 574 [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ENDO to include the teachings of WOODINGTON, because doing so would improve detection accuracy in dynamic environment, as recognized by WOODINGTON. In addition, both of the prior art references, ENDO and WOODINGTON, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection.
Regarding claim 12, ENDO/ TAKANO/ WOODINGTON discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for executing, on a computer, the method of claim 1 (a computer, a memory, a storage device, and the like, and the computer operates as various functional units by executing a control program stored in the memory or the like [ENDO 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al. (US 9,633,483 B1) discloses a system for filtering, segmenting and recognizing objects. The system receives a three-dimensional (3D) point cloud having a plurality of data points in 3D space and down-samples the 3D point cloud to generate a down-sampled 3D point cloud with reduced data points in the 3D space. The above-ground data points are clustered to generate a plurality of 3D blobs, each of the 3D blobs having a cluster size. The 3D blobs are filtered based on cluster size to generate a set of 3D candidate blobs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 5, 2026