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 .
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: Each “unit configured” in claims 1-14, 17-18.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CAI (US 2021/0272289).
As to claim 1, CAI discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor or circuit (para. 0062)configured to function as:
a boundary detection unit configured 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
a combined distance information determination unit configured to 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)).
As to claim 2, CAI discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as: a classification unit configured to 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).
As to claim 3, CAI discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the classification unit classifies the sub-region as one of three categories including the sky, a road, and others (para. 0087, e.g., a corresponding silhouette image indicating sky regions identified from the image).
As to claim 5, CAI discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as: a distance information measurement unit configured to detect the distance information for each pixel of the image information (para. 0085, 0087, 0088)
As to claim 11, CAI discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the boundary detection unit detects a position where a difference in the color information of the adjacent pixels is more than a predetermined threshold value as the boundary (para. 0051, 0072-0077).
As to claim 12, CAI 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 (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 (para. 0043, 0081, 0083).
As to claim 13, CAI discloses the image processing according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as: an object detection unit configured to detect an object by integrating images of the plurality of divisional regions including the sub-region classified by the classification unit (para. 0056, 0059).
As to claim 14, CAI discloses the above claim limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a traveling control unit configured to control a traveling state on the basis of information regarding the object detected by the object detection unit (para. 0033, 0063, 0089).
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.
As to claim 17, CAI discloses the above claim limitations of claim 1, and further discloses an output unit configured to output the combined distance information determined by the determination unit (para. 0085).
As to claim 18, CAI discloses the above claim limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a display control unit configured to display a color determined on the basis of the combined distance information acquired by the acquisition unit on a display device for each sub-region (para. 0062, 0066, 0102).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAI (US 2021/0272289) in view of Brueckner (US 2019/0188496).
As to claim 4, CAI is silent regarding wherein the boundary detection unit divides 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.
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 CAI 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.
8. Claim(s) 6-10 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 6, CAI is silent regarding wherein the distance information measurement unit generates a reliability representing a likelihood of the distance information of each pixel on the basis of the color information, and the combined distance information determination unit determines the combined distance information 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 the distance information measurement unit generates a reliability representing a likelihood of the distance information of each pixel on the basis of the color information (para. , 0062, 0063, 0085) and the combined distance information determination unit determines the combined distance information 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 an imaging unit configured to image a subject and generate a plurality of images with different viewpoints (para. 0033). CAI is silent regarding the distance information measurement unit calculates a parallax amount of the plurality of images on the basis of the color information, calculates a parallax reliability indicating a likelihood of the parallax amount of each pixel on the basis of the color information, and generates the reliability on the basis of the parallax reliability.
Tanaka teaches an imaging unit configured to image a subject and generate a plurality of images with different viewpoints (para. 0010), and the distance information measurement unit calculates a parallax amount of the plurality of images on the basis of the color information, calculates a parallax reliability indicating a likelihood of the parallax amount of each pixel on the basis of the color information, and generates 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 distance information measurement unit calculates the parallax reliability of pixels in which a luminance value of the plurality of images is equal to or greater than a predetermined value 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 distance information measurement unit calculates the parallax reliability of pixels in which a luminance value of the plurality of images is equal to or greater than a predetermined value 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 an imaging unit configured to image a subject and generate the image information (para. 0033, 0059). CAI is silent regarding an imaging unit configured to image a subject and generate the image information, and the distance information measurement unit measures 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 of the imaging unit.
Tanaka teaches an imaging unit configured to image a subject and generate the image information, and the distance information measurement unit measures 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 of the imaging unit (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 measurement unit measures the distance information according to a phase difference ranging method on the basis of two image signals from a stereo camera.
Tanaka teaches wherein the distance information measurement unit measures the distance information 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MOTOYAMA discloses a method comprising labeling each of a plurality of subjects in an image with a label, the label for each subject indicating a kind of the subject, wherein the labeling comprises analyzing the image and/or distance measurement points for an area depicted in the image, and determining additional distance information not included in the distance measurement point.
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