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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action, filed 5/28/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending.
The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Mihara (JP-2002366958-A).
Claim Interpretation
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.
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. 112(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 stereo image acquiring unit configured to in claim 1 and 9 described in ¶23.
a stereo distance measuring unit configured to in claim 1 and 9 described in ¶23.
a movement amount calculating unit configured to in claim 1 and 9 described in ¶23.
a feature point distance measuring unit configured to in claim 5 described in ¶23.
a control unit configured to in claim 9 described in ¶23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0296621) in view of Cho (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2020/0272831) in view of Mihara (JP-2002366958-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Teranishi teaches a measuring device comprising at least one processor or circuit configured to function as a plurality of units comprising:
(1) a stereo image acquiring unit (¶186 As illustrated in FIG. 10, two cameras 310 and measuring device 321 that are included in camera group 300 are fixed to and supported by fixing component 330, so that the respective positions and orientations are in a fixed relationship. An apparatus including two cameras 310 and measuring device 321 in the fixed positional relationship relative to each other is called a sensor apparatus. Two cameras 310 constitute a stereo camera; ¶78-79) configured to (a) acquire a first image of a first viewpoint and a second image of a second viewpoint at a predetermined first time (¶186 Two cameras 310 synchronize with each other to perform shooting of images, and generate stereo images shot at the synchronized shooting time) and (b) acquire a third image of the first viewpoint and a fourth image of the second viewpoint at a second time different from the first time (¶186 Two cameras 310 may shoot stereo video; ¶194 The stereo video includes a plurality of stereo images each generated in time series)
(2) a stereo distance measuring unit configured to (a) acquire a first distance image from the first image and the second image and (b) acquire a second distance image from the third image and the fourth image; and (¶41 Each of the plurality of distance images may include a plurality of pixels each including distance information indicating distance from the distance image sensor that generated the distance image to the subject. The plurality of pixels included in each of the plurality of distance images may each be associated with a corresponding one of a plurality of pixels included in, among a plurality of camera images, a camera image corresponding to the distance image. The plurality of camera images may include the first camera image and the second camera image.)
Teranishi does not explicitly disclose (3) a movement amount calculating unit configured to calculate a relative movement amount between the stereo image acquiring unit and a subject between the first time and the second time on the basis of the first distance image and the second distance image; wherein the relative distance value comprises a distance differential image obtained by subtracting the second distance image from the first distance image.
Cho is in the same field of art of image analysis. Further, Cho teaches (3) a movement amount calculating unit configured to calculate a relative movement amount between the stereo image acquiring unit and a subject between the first time and the second time based on a relative distance value, the relative distance value having been obtained from the first distance image and the second distance image (¶58-61 the control unit 100 may calculate the displacement of the feature point for a predetermined time using the per-pixel distance information of the first camera unit 110, which may be stored in a memory accessible to, for example, the control unit 100 … ¶59 Since such a feature point is positioned in the common area 220, the feature point is also present in an image acquired via the second camera unit 120. Thus, the control unit 100 may also calculate a pixel displacement of the feature point positioned in the common area 220 in the image acquired via the second camera unit 120.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Teranishi by calculating a movement distance that is taught by Cho; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since this method accurately recognizes distance information (Cho ¶60).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Mihara is in the same field of image analysis. Further Mihara teaches wherein the relative distance value comprises a distance differential image obtained by subtracting the second distance image from the first distance image (¶46 The difference calculation unit 2 performs difference processing on the distance image of any two frames (hereinafter, distance image A and distance image B) included in the distance image stream of the recognition target object acquired by the image acquisition unit 1 to obtain the difference. An image is generated (step S2).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Teranishi by calculating distance by subtracting two distance images that is taught by Mihara; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to stably and accurately recognize the three-dimensional movement (Mihara ¶9).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara discloses the measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the movement amount calculating unit calculates the movement amount by statistically processing the relative distance value for each of pixels of the first distance image and the second distance image (Cho, ¶61 The control unit 100 may calculate the per-pixel distance of the image captured via the second camera unit 120 by coupling the displacement of the feature point acquired via the first camera unit 110 and the pixel displacement of the feature point acquired via the second camera unit 120. For example, when the displacement of the feature point acquired via the first camera unit 110 is 10 cm and the pixel displacement of the feature point acquired via the second camera unit 120 is 20 pixels, the per-pixel distance of the image captured via the second camera unit 120 may be calculated as 0.5 cm.)
The reasons for combining Teranishi, Cho, and Mihara are similar to that stated in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, this same reasoning is pertinent and applicable to the rejections of claims 3 and 9 below.
Regarding Claim 3, Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara discloses the measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the movement amount calculating unit performs association of pixels of the first distance image and the second distance image on the basis of information of an optical system and calculates the relative distance value by comparing distance information of the pixels associated with each other (Cho, ¶61 The control unit 100 may calculate the per-pixel distance of the image captured via the second camera unit 120 by coupling the displacement of the feature point acquired via the first camera unit 110 and the pixel displacement of the feature point acquired via the second camera unit 120. For example, when the displacement of the feature point acquired via the first camera unit 110 is 10 cm and the pixel displacement of the feature point acquired via the second camera unit 120 is 20 pixels, the per-pixel distance of the image captured via the second camera unit 120 may be calculated as 0.5 cm.)
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above as well as in accordance with Cho further teaching on: a control unit configured to perform warning or control of a movement operation of the moving device on the basis of the movement amount calculated by the movement amount calculating unit (Cho ¶56 The control unit 100 may detect an object ahead of the vehicle 230, and transfer information (e.g., distance information and bounding box information) of the detected object to at least one controller, such as a steering controller 150, a braking controller 160, and/or the like, to perform, for instance, an autonomous driving function or anti-collision function.)
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above as well as in accordance with Teranishi further teaching on: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing processes comprising: (¶10 the present disclosure may be implemented as a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0296621) in view of Cho (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2020/0272831) in view of Mihara (JP-2002366958-A) in view of Gauci (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2021/0334984).
Regarding Claim 4, Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara teaches the measuring device according to claim 3.
Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara does not explicitly disclose wherein the movement amount calculating unit calculates the movement amount on the basis of a peak of an approximation curve fitted to a histogram of the relative distance values.
Gauci is in the same field of art of image analysis. Further, Gauci teaches wherein the movement amount calculating unit calculates the movement amount on the basis of a peak of an approximation curve fitted to a histogram of the relative distance values (¶95-97 an estimation of the deviation from the taxiway centerline, also known as the “cross-track error”, is performed … a histogram H of the number of non-zero pixels in each column of a small region of interest (e.g., 70×70 pixels) directly in front of the nose of the aircraft 102 is found; The deviation of the aircraft 102 from the centerline is given by the value of the shift which maximizes the correlation between the two histograms. The deviation in pixels can be expressed as a physical distance (e.g., centimeters (or meters)) using a scaling factor.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara by calculating movement amount on curve fitting to a histogram that is taught by Gauci; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to accurately estimate the deviation of the imager (Gauci¶95).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0296621) in view of Cho (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2020/0272831) in view of Mihara (JP-2002366958-A) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2021/0097716).
Regarding Claim 5, Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara teaches the measuring device according to claim 1.
Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara does not explicitly disclose wherein the movement amount calculating unit includes a feature point distance measuring unit configured to calculate a position/posture change amount of the stereo image acquiring unit on the basis of a correspondence relation between feature points of the first image and the third image, and wherein the movement amount calculating unit calculates the movement amount by performing scaling of the position/posture change amount using the relative distance value between the first distance image and the second distance image.
Lee is in the same field of art of image analysis. Further, Lee teaches wherein the movement amount calculating unit includes a feature point distance measuring unit configured to calculate a position/posture change amount of the stereo image acquiring unit on the basis of a correspondence relation between feature points of the first image and the third image, and wherein the movement amount calculating unit calculates the movement amount by performing scaling of the position/posture change amount using the relative distance value between the first distance image and the second distance image (Lee, ¶98 a feature point movement in the corrected image is determined. In an example, a feature point movement in the corrected image is determined by comparing a corrected image corresponding to a current time point t and a corrected image corresponding to a previous time point t−1. In an example, a final movement is determined by accumulating a movement determined for each time point; ¶106 a pose is estimated based on the phase difference sensed by the dual or more-pixel sensor and/or the feature point movement change in the raw image and/or the corrected image.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara by calculate movement amount based on posture change amount that is taught by Lee; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to efficiently estimate the pose (Lee ¶108).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara in view of Lee discloses the measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the stereo image acquiring unit acquires the fourth image from the first image using an image sensor of a pupil division system (Lee, ¶11 The image sensor may be a dual or more-pixel sensor, each pixel of the dual or more-pixel may include photodiodes; ¶12 The method may include determining a vector toward a focal plane based on a phase difference acquired from two photodiodes selected from the photodiodes in each pixel of the dual or more-pixel, wherein the estimating of the pose may include estimating the pose based on the vector.)
The reasons for combining Teranishi, Cho, Mihara and Lee are similar to that stated in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0296621) in view of Cho (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2020/0272831) in view of Mihara (JP-2002366958-A) in view of Lee (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2021/0097716) in view of Ogawa (U.S. Patent Pub No. 2006/0029272).
Regarding Claim 7, Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara in view of Lee teaches the measuring device according to claim 5.
Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the stereo distance measuring unit calculates first distance information of each pixel, wherein the feature point distance measuring unit (a) calculates an optical flow on the basis of a correspondence relation between feature points of the first image and the third image and (b) calculates second distance information of each pixel on the basis of the optical flow and the movement amount, and wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as a correction unit for correcting an output of the stereo image acquiring unit using the first distance information and the second distance information.
Ogawa is in the same field of art of image analysis. Further, Ogawa teaches wherein the stereo distance measuring unit calculates first distance information of each pixel, wherein the feature point distance measuring unit (a) calculates an optical flow on the basis of a correspondence relation between feature points of the first image and the third image (¶140 the stereo cameras 10 are not limited to the present embodiment and may consist of one camera for taking a plurality of images with a constant time interval and configured to detect a velocity vector indicating velocity components of each frame point in each image, or so-called optical flow) and (b) calculates second distance information of each pixel on the basis of the optical flow and the movement amount (¶47 correlates the base and reference images to thereby identify corresponding areas. A distance between corresponding small areas occur depending on a distance to the object and this distance (pixel disparity) is equivalent to a parallax. The stereo processor 5 is configured to be capable of generating and outputting 3-dimensional image information (a distance image), which is a numeric expression of information on a distance to the object obtained from this disparity quantity,) and wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as a correction unit for correcting an output of the stereo image acquiring unit using the first distance information and the second distance information (¶86 In Step S5, the parallax corrector 6 obtains a disparity quantity which provides a minimum corrected SAD function value as corrected distance information. After this, this parallax corrector 6 repeats processing of Steps S2-S5 until it determines in Step 6 that the parallax correction is completed for all blocks to stop the processing. The parallax corrector 6 outputs the corrected distance information to the distance image memory 8.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara in view of Lee by calculating optical flow and using it to calculate the distance that is taught by Ogawa; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since this allows for high parallax detection (Ogawa¶10).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, Teranishi in view of Cho in view of Mihara in view of Lee in view of Ogawa discloses the measuring device according to claim 7, wherein the first distance information and the second distance information are image-side defocusing amounts (Lee, ¶73-74 a position of a focal plane is determined based on a distance between a lens and a sensor. In an example, a characteristic of the lens is also be considered. An object located on the focal plane is collected at one point of a sensor so that blurriness is not generated. Whereas, an object that is not located on the focal plane is distributed at the sensor, which may cause blurriness; Referring to FIG. 7A, since an object at a distance Z.sub.1 from a lens is not located on a focal plane, it can be seen from DP data output from two photodiodes, selected from the plurality of photodiodes, that a disparity d and a blurriness b is present in an image generated during capturing.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN BILODEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-1032. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/DUSTIN BILODEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights