DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT JP2021/009824. No certified English translation is in the official record for the application. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a) -(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action, 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Status
This action is in response to the application filed on November 12, 2025. Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-17 are amended, claim 4 is cancelled, and claims 19-20 are added. Thus, claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending for examination in this application.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed November 12, 2025, have been entered.
Applicant’s amendments regarding the objection to the specification regarding the title is persuasive. Accordingly, the objection to the specification is withdrawn in response.
Applicant’s amendments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 11, 2025, regarding claims 1-3, and 5-17, are persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn in response. Regarding claim 18, the limitations still claim a computer readable medium which is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections is upheld in response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 12, 2025, regarding the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-18 have been fully and completely considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of the references, facilitated by Applicant’s newly submitted amendments, including new prior art—Tamura et al, US 20180086373—being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because their scope encompassed both statutory non-transitory computer readable media and non-statutory transitory computer readable media. The claim recites a computer readable medium storing a program.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al, KR 20190036844 in view of Wu CN 106204572 in view of Kaneide JP 2001266160 in further view of Tamura et al, US 20180086373.
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches an image analysis apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see Kang, Paragraph [0157], “The processor (1930) can execute a program and control the identification device (1900). Program code executed by the processor (1930) may be stored in memory (1940)”);
perform area division on an image (see Kang, Paragraph [0049], “The identification device can create a segmentation image by segmenting objects into semantic units from an input image, identifying the meaning of the segmented area on a pixel by-pixel basis, and labeling each class”, segmentation is considered to be area division) obtained by capturing a road surface (see Kang, Paragraph [0006], “The step of extracting the road surface marking may include the step of extracting pixels corresponding to the road surface marking from the input image”),
and generate a result of the area division indicating a classification of each image region of the image into a plurality of categories (see Kang, Paragraph [0049], “Classes can be classified into about 20 categories based on semantic units such as roads, vehicles, sidewalks, people, animals, sky, buildings, etc.”);
Kang does not expressively teach
perform depth estimation on the image and generate depth estimation information;
However, Wu in similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
perform depth estimation on the image (see Wu, Paragraph [110], “After obtaining the segmented area, it needs to be labeled as ground, sky, vertical object, and scene depth estimation is performed for vertical objects”) and generate depth estimation information (See Wu, Fig. 7B, Paragraph [0139], “For the reference point set of the depth estimation of the vertical area, obtain the depth estimation set Dset = DepthMap(Bound<sub>g</sub>) corresponding to the pixel, and calculate its average value as the expected depth estimation of the vertical area”);
The combination of Kang and Wu are analogous art because they are both in the same field of endeavor of detecting a road. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that after obtaining the segmented area to perform scene depth estimation of the vertical area in the device of Kang in the method of Wu to achieve a variety of visual tasks, including image segmentation, target recognition, and scene understanding, etc. (see Wu, Paragraph [0004]).
Kang in view of Wu does not expressively teach
and detect irregularities present on the road surface based on the result of the area division and the depth estimation information.
However, Kaneide in similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
and detect irregularities present on the road surface based on the result of the area division and the depth estimation information (see Kaneide, Paragraph [0122], “Preferably, the captured image is divided into a plurality of regions. Then, depth information is obtained for each divided region according to the recognition process of the present invention. That is, each divided area is treated in the same way as an obstacle candidate. If there is a difference in depth between the regions, it is determined that there is unevenness. For example, irregularities caused by construction work are detected”),
The combination of Kang, Wu, and Kaneide are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of detecting a road. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a difference in depth between the regions that is caused by unevenness or irregularities; the captured image is divided into a plurality of regions and if there is a difference in depth between the regions it is determined there is unevenness the captured image contains a road surface which is classified into the road category in the device of Kang in view of Wu in the device of Kaneide to recognize objects at different heights from the road surface (see Kaneide, Paragraph [0008]).
Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide does not expressively teach
wherein the detecting of irregularities present on the road surface starts when a lane in which a vehicle is traveling is a lane at an edge of the road,
and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate a steering intervention instruction for intervening in steering wheel operation so as to move the vehicle away from the detected irregularities on the road surface.
However, Tamura in similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
wherein the detecting of irregularities present on the road surface starts when a lane in which a vehicle is traveling is a lane at an edge of the road (see Tamura, Fig. 1, Paragraph [0026], “Further, the map information processor 30 may output road shape data of factors such as road curvature, lane width, and a road shoulder of a road along which the own vehicle and a preceding vehicle are to travel, as well as map information used for traveling control, such as a road azimuth angle, types of lane lines of the road, and the number of lanes,” there may be two lanes of road where each lane is on the edge of the road, Paragraph [0034], “a lane-change route setter 102, a road surface pattern detector 103,” Paragraph [0049], “The road surface pattern detector 103 may detect a road surface pattern formed by the irregular part on the surface of the road to which the own vehicle is to change lanes,” Fig. 8, S1, and Paragraph [0070], “When the timing for starting the lane change is satisfied, the flow may proceed to Step S2, in which detection may be performed for the road surface pattern of the road to which the lane change is to be made”),
and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate a steering intervention instruction for intervening in steering wheel operation so as to move the vehicle away from the detected irregularities on the road surface (see Tamura, Paragraph [0041]-[0042], “Further, when the lane-change permission determiner 104 instructs the lane-change route setter 102 to perform route correction, the lane-change route setter 102 may cause the route corrector 102b to correct the lane-change route. To be more specific, the route generator 102a may generate, by means of a predetermined route model, a trajectory of the own vehicle that moves as a result of changing lanes to thereby calculate a route component of the movement trajectory necessary for a steering control for the lane change”).
The combination of Kang, Wu, Kaneide, and Tamura are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of detecting a road. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect a road surface pattern formed by the irregular part on the surface of the roach to which the own vehicle is to change lanes and instruct the lane-change route setter to perform route correction and detect a region of a raised part which has heigh equal to or greater than a threshold value with respect to height of the roach surface of the lane line and which has the texture present on an image in the apparatus of Tamura in the device of Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide to perform a proper lane change based on a circumstance of a surface of a road to which a lane change is to be made (see Tamura, Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide in view of Tamura further teaches the image analysis apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of categories include a road category (see Kang, Paragraph [0049], “Classes can be classified into about 20 categories based on semantic units such as roads, vehicles, sidewalks, people, animals, sky, buildings, etc.”), and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: detect irregularities present on the road surface within the image area classified into the road category (see Kaneide, Paragraph [0122], “Preferably, the captured image is divided into a plurality of regions. Then, depth information is obtained for each divided region according to the recognition process of the present invention. That is, each divided area is treated in the same way as an obstacle candidate. If there is a difference in depth between the regions, it is determined that there is unevenness. For example, irregularities caused by construction work are detected,” the image area contains a road surface with irregularities which is classified into the road category).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 3, Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide in view of Tamura further teaches the image analysis apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: detect an area where the estimated depth falls outside a predetermined threshold range as irregularities present on the road surface (see Tamura, Paragraph [0050], “The road surface pattern detector 103 may detect, as the road surface pattern, a region of a raised part which has height equal to or greater than a threshold value with respect to height of the road surface of the lane line in a vertical direction and which has the texture present on an image”).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 5, Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide in view of Tamura further teaches the image analysis apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the process comprising detecting the irregularities is started upon determining that the predetermined condition regarding a lane in which the vehicle travels is satisfied (see Kang, Paragraph [0155], “in a situation where a vehicle needs to cross two lanes from its driving lane and enter a way out of a highway, the processor (1930) can predict in advance whether the driving lane needs to be changed and provide guidance to the user or display it through a display (1950) to enable safe vehicle operation”).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Regarding claim 6, Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide in view of Tamura further teaches the image analysis apparatus according to claim 5,
wherein the lane in which the vehicle travels is specified based on a dividing line included in the image (see Kang, Paragraph [0044], “'Lines' can be understood as various types of lines, such as solid or dotted lines, marked in white, blue or yellow on the road surface. The various types of lane markings that fall under road surface markings may include, in addition to lane markings that separate traffic lanes, zigzag lanes, bus lanes, and sidewalk dividers. In this specification, the lane that divides one lane among lanes is referred to as a 'lane boundary line' to distinguish it from other lanes”).
The rationale of claim 5 has been applied herein.
As per Claim 7, Claim 7 claims an image analysis method comprising the same limitations as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
As per Claim 8, Claim 8 claims the same limitation as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 2.
As per Claim 9, Claim 9 claims the same limitation as Claim 3 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide in view of Tamura further teaches the image analysis method according to claim 7,
wherein the image analysis method is used during driving of a vehicle, (see Kang, Paragraph [0040], “The identification device can acquire one or more input images per frame using a photographing device mounted on the front of the vehicle”), and wherein a process comprising detecting the irregularities is started upon determining that a predetermined condition regarding driving of a vehicle is satisfied (see Kang, Paragraph [0154], “The processor (1930) can identify a driving lane of a vehicle by recognizing a change in a driving environment and performing a method for identifying a driving lane described above through FIGS. 1 to 18 based on the recognition result. A change in the driving environment may include at least one of, for example, a departure from the driving lane by the driving vehicle, an encroachment into the driving lane by a surrounding vehicle, or a change in road surface markings,” recognizing a change in the driving environment is considered to be detecting the irregularities is started upon determining that a predetermined condition of regarding driving of a vehicle is satisfied).
As per Claim 11, Claim 11 claims the same limitation as Claim 5 and is dependent on a similarly rejected dependent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 5.
As per Claim 12, Claim 12 claims the same limitation as Claim 6 and is dependent on a similarly rejected dependent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 6.
As per Claim 13, Claim 13 claims a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer program to execute: the same limitations as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 1.
Kang further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute (see Kang, Paragraph [0165], “The method according to the embodiment may be implemented in the form of program commands that can be executed through various computer means and recorded on a computer-readable medium”).
As per Claim 14, Claim 14 claims the same limitation as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 2.
As per Claim 15, Claim 15 claims the same limitation as Claim 3 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 3.
As per Claim 16, Claim 16 claims the same limitation as Claim 10 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 10.
As per Claim 17, Claim 17 claims the same limitation as Claim 5 and is dependent on a similarly rejected dependent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 5.
As per Claim 18, Claim 18 claims the same limitation as Claim 6 and is dependent on a similarly rejected dependent claim. Therefore the rejection and rationale are analogous to that made in Claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide in view of Tamura teaches the image analysis apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein depth estimation is performed only on a road area of the image areas divided by the area division means (see Wu, Fig. 6B and Paragraph [0110], “After obtaining the segmented area, it needs to be labeled as ground, sky, vertical object, and scene depth estimation is performed for vertical objects,” depth estimation is performed for vertical objects, in Fig. 6b, vertical objects consists of cars on a road).
The rationale of claim 1 has been applied herein.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al, KR 20190036844 in view of Wu CN 106204572 in view of Kaneide et al, JP 2001266160 in view of Tamura et al, US 20180086373, in further view You et al, US 20180164832.
Regarding claim 20, Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide in view of Tamura teaches the image analysis apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a position information of the vehicle (see Kang, Paragraph [0119], “The display device can easily express the relative position of the vehicle with respect to the road defined by the normal distance from the centerline of the road to the origin of the vehicle and the direction of the vehicle from the position information of the lane expressed in the world coordinate system through inverse perspective transformation”);
Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide in view of Tamura does not expressively teach
and start the detecting of irregularities present on the road surface when the vehicle enters a narrow alley.
However, You in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches
and start the detecting of irregularities present on the road surface when the vehicle enters a narrow alley (see You, Fig. 8, S100-S140, and Paragraph [0054]-[0055], “As illustrated in FIG. 8, when a vehicle enters a narrow road (S100), the apparatus 100 for controlling narrow road driving of a vehicle acquires a depth map on a front image, from a stereo camera or a lidar device, and produce a height map on the front image based on the depth map (S110).Thereafter, the apparatus 100 for controlling narrow road driving of a vehicle may recognize a front object and a driving allowable area (S130 and S140) by analyzing a narrow road contour based on the height map (S120),” a narrow road is considered to be a narrow alley).
The combination of Kang, Wu, Kaneide, Tamura, and You are analogous art because they are all in the same field of endeavor of detecting a road. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire a depth map, recognize a front object and a driving allowable area when a vehicle enters a narrow road in the apparatus of You in the device of Kang in view of Wu in view of Kaneide in view of Tamura to allow the vehicle to safely pass through the narrow road (see You, Paragraph [0005]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DOMINIQUE JAMES whose telephone number is (703)756-1655. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 2666 /MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666