Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Cai is silent regarding "determine combined distance information wherein the distance information is integrated for each sub-region separated by the boundary in the divisional region to determine the combined distance information indicating a respective distance of each sub-region," and "perform predetermined classification according to the combined distance information for the sub-region"”.
Tanaka teaches wherein the distance information is integrated for each sub-region separated by the boundary in the divisional region to determine the combined distance information indicating a respective distance of each sub-region (para. 0085).
Both Cai and Tanaka teach performing predetermined classification according to the combined distance information for the sub-region (Cai, para. 0045, 0087; Tanaka, para. 0085, 0090)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 4-13, 15-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-13, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAI (US 2021/0272289) in view of Tanaka (US 2019/0120950).
As to claim 1, CAI discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor or circuit (para. 0062); and
a memory storing a program (para. 0062) which, when executed by the at least one processor or
circuit, causes the image processing apparatus to:
detect a boundary in each divisional region obtained by dividing image information into a plurality of divisional regions on the basis of color information of each pixel of the image information (para. 0070, 0071, e.g. segmenting (or otherwise dividing) an image into multiple candidate regions for sky detection) ; and
determine combined distance information for each sub-region separated by the boundary in the divisional region on the basis of distance information of each pixel of the image information (para. 0085, 0087, 0088, e.g., transforming or converting the identified second subset of regions that represent interfering feature(s) (e.g., the sky) to integrate with data obtained from the stereo vision system of the mobile platform; the sky is considered to be at an infinite distance from the cameras; the stereo vision system can filter out data corresponding to the interfering feature(s) (e.g., the sky) and associate proper depth value(s) (e.g., infinity) to the filtered-out area(s) or space(s). In some embodiments, the method 200 includes transforming or converting the identified regions to filter environment data (e.g., depth data) obtained by other sensor(s) (e.g., LiDAR, RADAR) and/or direct applicable sensor(s) to selectively perform depth measurement (e.g., skip the scanning of interfering feature(s));
perform predetermined classification according to the combined distance information for the sub-region (para. 0045, 0087, e.g., controller can then transform data (e.g., location, boundaries, or the like) corresponding to the second region subset into detecting data obtained by a third sensor carried by the mobile platform. The third sensor (e.g., a stereo camera) may produce three-dimensional (3D) sensor data which the mobile platform typically uses for environment mapping, obstacle detection, automated navigation, or other functions).
CAI is silent regarding wherein the distance information is integrated for each sub-region separated by the boundary in the divisional region to determine the combined distance information indicating a respective distance of each sub-region.
Tanaka teaches wherein the distance information is integrated for each sub-region separated by the boundary in the divisional region to determine the combined distance information indicating a respective distance of each sub-region (para. 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tanaka’s teachings into CAI since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and would improve system performance.
As to claim 3, the combination of CAI and Tanaka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the sub-region is classified as one of three categories including the sky, a road, and others (CAI, para. 0087, e.g., a corresponding silhouette image indicating sky regions identified from the image).
As to claim 5, the combination of CAI and Tanaka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor or circuit further causes the image processing apparatus to: detect the distance information for each pixel of the image information (Cai, para. 0085, 0087, 0088; Tanaka, para. 0085).
As to claim 6, CAI is silent regarding wherein a reliability representing a likelihood of the distance information of each pixel on the basis of the color information is generated, and the combined distance information is determined for each sub-region on the basis of the distance information of each pixel that is weighted on the basis of the reliability.
Tanaka teaches wherein a reliability representing a likelihood of the distance information of each pixel on the basis of the color information is generated (para. , 0062, 0063, 0085) and the combined distance information is determined for each sub-region on the basis of the distance information of each pixel that is weighted on the basis of the reliability (para. 0078, 0082, 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tanaka’s teachings into CAI since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and would improve system performance.
As to claim 7, Cai discloses imaging a subject and generate a plurality of images with different viewpoints (para. 0033). CAI is silent regarding calculating a parallax amount of the plurality of images on the basis of the color information, calculating a parallax reliability indicating a likelihood of the parallax amount of each pixel on the basis of the color information, and generating the reliability on the basis of the parallax reliability.
Tanaka teaches imaging a subject and generate a plurality of images with different viewpoints (para. 0010), calculating a parallax amount of the plurality of images on the basis of the color information, calculating a parallax reliability indicating a likelihood of the parallax amount of each pixel on the basis of the color information, and generating the reliability on the basis of the parallax reliability (para. 0061-0063, 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tanaka’s teachings into CAI since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and would improve system performance.
As to claim 8, CAI is silent regarding wherein the parallax reliability of pixels in which a luminance value of the plurality of images is equal to or greater than a predetermined value is calculated to be lower than the parallax reliability of pixels in which a luminance value of the plurality of images is smaller than the predetermined value.
Tanaka teaches wherein the parallax reliability of pixels in which a luminance value of the plurality of images is equal to or greater than a predetermined value is calculated to be lower than the parallax reliability of pixels in which a luminance value of the plurality of images is smaller than the predetermined value (para. 0061-0063, 0073, 0103, 0104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tanaka’s teachings into CAI since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and would improve system performance.
As to claim 9, CAI discloses imaging a subject and generate the image information (para. 0033, 0059). CAI is silent regarding measuring the distance information according to a phase difference ranging method on the basis of signals from a first photoelectric conversion portion and a second photoelectric conversion portion disposed in a pixel.
Tanaka teaches imaging a subject and generate the image information (para. 0033, 0059). CAI is silent regarding measuring the distance information according to a phase difference ranging method on the basis of signals from a first photoelectric conversion portion and a second photoelectric conversion portion disposed in a pixel (para. 0040, 0046-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tanaka’s teachings into CAI since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and would improve system performance.
As to claim 10, CAI is silent regarding wherein the distance information is measured according to a phase difference ranging method on the basis of two image signals from a stereo camera.
Tanaka teaches wherein the distance information is measured according to a phase difference ranging method on the basis of two image signals from a stereo camera (para. (para. 0040, 0046-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tanaka’s teachings into CAI since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and would improve system performance.
As to claim 11, the combination of CAI and Tanaka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a position where a difference in the color information of the adjacent pixels is more than a predetermined threshold value is detected as the boundary (Cai, para. 0051, 0072-0077; Tanaka, para. 0085).
As to claim 12, the combination of CAI and Tanaka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the divisional region has a plurality of pixels arranged in a horizontal direction of a screen (Cai, Fig. 6, para. 0083), and the color information is a representative value obtained on the basis of the plurality of pixels arranged in the horizontal direction of the screen (Cai, para. 0043, 0081, 0083; Tanaka, para. 0085).
As to claim 13, the combination of CAI and Tanaka discloses the image processing according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor or circuit further causes the image processing apparatus to: detect an object by integrating images of the plurality of divisional regions including the classified sub-region (Cai, para. 0056, 0059; Tanaka, para. 0085).
As to claims 15-16, these claims recite features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAI (US 2021/0272289) in view of Tanaka (US 2019/0120950) and further in view of Brueckner (US 2019/0188496).
As to claim 4, the combination of CAI and Tanaka is silent regarding wherein the image information is divided into the plurality of divisional regions that extend in a vertical direction of a screen and are arranged in a horizontal direction of the screen.
Brueckner teaches dividing the image information into the plurality of divisional regions that extend in a vertical direction of a screen and are arranged in a horizontal direction of the screen (Fig. 3a, para. 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Brueckner’s teachings into the combination of CAI and Tanaka since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and would lower system complexity and reduce image data to be processed thereby improving processing speed.
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 PHUOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7399. 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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/PHUOC TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights