DETAIL OFFICE ACTIONS
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the response filed for the current application that is submitted on 11/26/2025. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following documents submitted and has made the following comments below.
Applicant Arguments:
In regards to Argument 1, Applicant/s state/s Claim 1 does not recite a mathematical concept, and therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 101 should be removed.
In regards to Argument 2, Applicant/s state/s Zhai in view or Zhao does not teach on the “extracting a plurality of features maps with different resolutions from the image data captured by the camera in the vertical image plane by a feature extractor”, since it would be require multiple cameras; therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be removed.
Examiner’s Responses:
In response to Argument 1, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
In response to Argument 2, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that the combination of Zhai and Zhao teaches the claimed subject matter. The Examiner treats Zhai as the primary reference—a system employing a single camera that captures image data in the vertical image plane—and brings in Zhao for the limited purpose of teaching that images can be of different resolutions, incorporating Zhao’s “different resolutions” teaching into Zhai’s single-camera system. The Examiner relies on Zhai ¶ 26 for capturing image data (the left and right regions of interest of a single image frame) and turns to Zhao ¶ 76 solely to supply the notion that images may have different resolutions. The Examiner is not importing multiple, physically distinct cameras into Zhai; rather, the Examiner is incorporating only Zhao’s teaching that image data may be processed at different resolutions, which is fully compatible with Zhai’s single-camera arrangement.
Applicant argues that the only vehicle by which Zhao teaches “different resolutions” is through the use of multiple, physically distinct cameras, and that importing that teaching into Zhai’s single camera creates an internal inconsistency with the claim language. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because Zhao itself expressly contemplates a single camera capturing multiple images. Specifically, Zhao teaches that “[s]ome of the cameras 118 of the sensing system 110 can be video cameras configured to capture a continuous (or quasi-continuous) stream of images of the driving environment 101” (Zhao ¶ 34), and that “multiple images taken by a surround-view camera (SVC) [can be] taken during a single cycle of the camera” (Zhao ¶ 25). Zhao further treats “a camera with a rotating optical axis” as a direct alternative to “multiple cameras” (Zhao ¶ 63). Accordingly, Zhao does not require multiple, distinct cameras to obtain multiple images or to give rise to different image characteristics; a single camera in Zhao can capture multiple images. Zhao’s enumeration in ¶ 76—including “high-definition (high-resolution) cameras,” cameras “having a fixed or adjustable focal distance,” and cameras “having a fixed or adjustable numerical aperture”—describes resolution-affecting characteristics that a single camera can possess. The Examiner therefore properly relies on Zhao only for the teaching that image data may be of different resolutions, and that teaching is not inseparable from any multiple-camera premise.
Applicant further argues that claim 1’s recitation of “extracting a plurality of feature maps with different resolutions from the image data captured by the camera,” together with “selecting one of the extracted feature maps in dependence on a position of a portion of the image data in a horizontal image plane relative to the camera,” requires that all feature maps originate from a single camera, and that the Examiner’s combination introduces multiple cameras contrary to this requirement. This argument is not persuasive because the Examiner’s combination does not introduce multiple cameras. As set forth above, Zhai already employs a single camera (Zhai ¶¶ 20, 26), and Zhao expressly permits a single camera to capture multiple images at different resolutions (Zhao ¶¶ 25, 34, 63, 76). The combination thus retains Zhai’s single camera while incorporating Zhao’s multi-resolution teaching, fully satisfying the “the camera” and “relative to the camera” limitations. The claim’s use of the singular “the camera” as the fixed reference frame is entirely consistent with the combination, in which the plurality of different-resolution feature maps and the position-based selection both derive from the image data of Zhai’s single camera. Applicant’s own specification confirms that a single camera is merely one option (see Applicant’s specification ¶ 11, stating the camera may “optionally” be single), and the cited combination reads on that arrangement.
Because the Examiner’s combination does not rely on multiple cameras and instead applies Zhao’s multi-resolution teaching to Zhai’s single-camera system, the combination arrives at every limitation of claim 1. Consistent with MPEP § 2143, KSR, and DyStar, the Examiner has articulated a motivation to combine—that precision and safety of the driving path depend on timely and accurate identification of objects (Zhao ¶ 2)—and a reasonable expectation of success, as both references operate in the same field of camera-based image analysis for driver-assistance and autonomous-vehicle applications and process perspective camera images to extract features and map them to a ground/bird’s-eye plane. One of ordinary skill possessed the knowledge and skills to combine these teachings. The requisite findings are therefore fully supported.
Turning to the dependent claims, Applicant has not separately argued the patentability of claims 2 and 6–9 apart from their dependence on claim 1, and the Examiner maintains the rejection for the reasons set forth in the Office Action. Claim 2 recites the use of the selected feature map in the vertical-to-horizontal transformation, taught by Zhai’s projection of image-plane features to the ground plane (Zhai ¶¶ 27–29). Claims 6 and 7 recite extraction and position-dependent selection of the feature maps, taught by Zhai’s region-of-interest processing selected in dependence on position within the image frame (Zhai ¶¶ 26, 38–39) in combination with Zhao’s multi-resolution teaching. Claims 8 and 9 recite corresponding system features, taught by the combination of Zhai’s imaging system and processing circuitry (Zhai ¶¶ 15, 20, 57) and Zhao’s processing device and feature-extraction networks (Zhao ¶¶ 18, 46). Finally, to the extent Applicant relies on Lev and Wen, those references are not necessary to remedy any deficiency, as Zhai in view of Zhao already teaches or suggests each limitation of the claims for the reasons stated above.
The Examiner will maintain the rejection below.
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(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) 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, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhai et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0293811, hereafter referred to as Zhai) in view of Zhao et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0096105, hereafter referred to as Zhao).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhai teaches a method for processing image data captured by a camera in a vertical image plane, the method comprising:
extracting a plurality of feature maps with different resolutions from the image data captured by the camera in the vertical image plane by a feature extractor (paragraph 26, Figure 3A, Zhai teaches capturing a set of images a left and right image), selecting one of the extracted feature maps in dependence on a position of a portion of the image data in a horizontal image plane relative to the camera (paragraph 26, paragraph 58, Zhai teaches image frame may only occur for portion of image located within the first and second region of interest, which is considered to be feature map of the image by a POSITA.), and
transforming the portion of the image data recorded in the vertical image plane from the vertical image plane to image data in the horizontal image plane based on the selected feature map (paragraph 27 – paragraph 29, Figure 3B Zhai teaches capturing by a imaging system an image frame viewed in the ground plane, which is considered to be the vertical image, then forming a bird’s-eye perspective of the scene, and the bird’s eye is projected on the ground plain which is considered to the horizontal image plane).
Zhai does not explicitly disclose extracting a plurality of feature maps with different resolutions from the image data captured by the camera in the vertical image plane by a feature extractor.
Zhao is in the same field of art of image analysis and image rendering. Further, Zhao teaches extracting a plurality of feature maps with different resolutions (paragraph 76, Zhao teaches using different cameras, which would be interpreted to have different resolution.) from the image data captured by the camera in the vertical image plane by a feature extractor (paragraph 64 teaches 2D mapping of the features expressed in a new coordinate of the horizontal surface, from the vertical pillar pixels.).
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 Zhai by incorporating the different cameras that is taught by Zhao, to make the invention that captures multiple images of different cameras for image analysis; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Precision and safety of the driving path and of the speed regime selected by the autonomous vehicle depend on timely and accurate identification of various objects present in the driving environment and on the ability of a driving algorithm to process the information about the environment and to provide correct instructions to the vehicle controls and the drivetrain (paragraph 2, Zhao).
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.
In regards to Claim 2, Zhai in view of Zhao discloses wherein the method is carried out for a section of the image data recorded in the vertical image plane until a substantially true-to-scale image (paragraph 55, Zhao teaches rescaled images) of the section in the horizontal image plane is obtained (paragraph 55, pixels are along the horizontal plane).
In regards to Claim 6, Zhai in view of Zhao discloses controlling a driving assistance system of a motor vehicle based on the image data in the horizontal image plane (paragraph 41, Zhao teaches the brakes and steering).
In regards to Claim 7, Zhai in view of Zhao discloses wherein the data processing device is configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (paragraph 90-paragraph 91, Zhao teaches processor).
In regards to Claim 8, Zhai in view of Zhao discloses A motor vehicle comprising the data processing device according to claim 7 (paragraph 1, Zhao teaches autonomous vehicle).
In regards to Claim 9, Zhai in view of Zhao discloses A computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program code which, when executed by a computer, carries out the method according to claim 1 (paragraph 90-paragraph 91, Zhao).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Zhai et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0293811, hereafter referred to as Zhai) in view of Zhao et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0096105, hereafter referred to as Zhao) in view of Lev et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0342110, hereafter referred to as Lev).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhai in view of Zhao teaches an imaging system that captures multiple images and changes the point of view of the image .
Zhai in view of Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the difference resolution increase with increasing distance of the portion of the image data recorded in the vertical image plane in the horizontal image plane from the camera.
Lev is in the same field of art of image processing. Further, Lev teaches wherein the difference resolution increase with increasing distance of the portion of the image data recorded in the vertical image plane in the horizontal image plane from the camera (paragraph 61, paragraph 69 Lev teaches detection resolution and the distance between the sensing points.).
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 Zhai in view of Zhao by incorporating the distance changing of imaging that is taught by Lev, to make the invention that captures multiple images of different cameras for image analysis based on the distance and the perform image rendering of point of view; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since To improve the detection resolution, a system according to the disclosed technique, employs asymmetric optics, further explained below, which reduces the Field Of View (FOV) of the imager, at least in the viewing (i.e., the Z axis in FIGS. 6A and 6B) (paragraph 70, Lev).
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 4, Zhai in view of Zhao teaches an imaging system that captures multiple images and changes the point of view of the image .
Zhai in view of Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein wherein the difference resolution increase adjusted stepwise in dependence on a position of the portion of the image data recorded in the vertical image plane in the horizontal image plane relative to the camera.
Lev is in the same field of art of image processing. Further, Lev teaches wherein the difference resolution increase adjusted stepwise in dependence on a position of the portion of the image data recorded in the vertical image plane in the horizontal image plane relative to the camera (paragraph 61, paragraph 69, paragraph 70, Lev).
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 Zhai in view of Zhao by incorporating the distance changing of imaging that is taught by Lev, to make the invention that captures multiple images of different cameras for image analysis based on the distance and the perform image rendering of point of view; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since To improve the detection resolution, a system according to the disclosed technique, employs asymmetric optics, further explained below, which reduces the Field Of View (FOV) of the imager, at least in the viewing (i.e., the Z axis in FIGS. 6A and 6B) (paragraph 70, Lev).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Zhai et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0293811, hereafter referred to as Zhai) in view of Zhao et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0096105, hereafter referred to as Zhao) in view of Wen et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0406679, hereafter referred to as Wen).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhai in view of Zhao teaches an imaging system that captures multiple images and changes the point of view of the image .
Zhai in view of Zhao does not explicitly disclose wherein the difference resolution increase configured such that only a single pixel access is required to transform the portion of the image data recorded in the vertical image plane from the vertical image plane to the horizontal image plane.
Wen is in the same field of art of image processing. Further, Wen teaches wherein the difference resolution increase configured such that only a single pixel access is required to transform the portion of the image data recorded in the vertical image plane from the vertical image plane to the horizontal image plane (paragraph 58, Wen teaches horizontal resolution and vertical resolution pixels.).
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 Zhai in view of Zhao by having minimum pixel conversation that is taught by Wen, to make the invention that captures multiple images of different cameras for image analysis and only requires a single pixel for conversation; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since while the computational load may be reduced for these systems, the image resolution captured by the image data may be insufficient for a DNN to extract needed road features at a far distance. As such, the safety of the autonomous vehicle may be impaired. (paragraph 2, Wen).
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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ONEAL R MISTRY whose telephone number is (313)446-4912. 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.
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.
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights