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 .
Examiner Notes
The examiner only has a partial copy of “The visible horizon: a potential source of visual information for the perception of size and distance,” Harold Sedgwick’s 1973 Ph.D. dissertation from Cornell, retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/openview/cd0ecbcc21c541a621de72c010229bb2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 (attached). The table of contents suggests that this thesis likely teaches the equation of claim 1, element (d), but the examiner was not able to retrieve a complete copy. If Applicant has a complete copy that it can provide, that would be appreciated. Applicant is not under any duty to obtain a copy.
The examiner appreciates the diagram explaining the cosine squared and now understands the calculation.
Certain claim amendments are not shown in the markup, such as changing “calculating the” to “calculating a” in step (d) of claim 1 or changing “vehicle” to “object” in claim 4. As per MPEP 714.03, these are deemed minor deficiencies and the examiner has exercised discretion to issue this action.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer review decision of October 16, 2025 disapproved the terminal disclaimer because the power of attorney is missing (see the decision for further explanation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have persuasively overcome the claim objections, the specification objections other than the to the title, the drawing objections, most of the 112 rejections and the 102 rejections. The remaining issues are addressed below.
112
Applicant argues:
The examiners analysis of any of the 35 USC 112 is flawed by not taking into account the skill level of a man of ordinary skill in the ary which is an electrical engineer with at leas a BSC degree.
Examiner responds:
See MPEP 2141.03(II) titled “specifying a particular level of skill is not necessary where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level.”
Applicant argues:
Step (d) was amended to define the equation that is being used.
Examiner responds:
The claimed equation differs from the equation in the specification.
Applicant argues:
The row location horizon estimate is updated as the pitch angle correction defines the deviation of the updated row-location horizon from the initially calculated row-location horizon.
Examiner responds:
The claim states that the camera is assumed to be horizontal (i.e., there is no correction)
Applicant argues:
… but rather a phrase known in the art and its meaning is well understood to POSTIA. It appears in 10620 patent and patent application according to the WIPO search engine.
Examiner responds:
Note that this is a 112(a) rejection, not a 112(b). The examiner agrees that autonomous driving is definite, the issue is that this term covers a wide range of technology that is not disclosed in the current specification (e.g., cars from Waymo).
Applicant argues:
A distance to the object is a known term and well known to a POSTIA -especially in the context of driving and vehicles - it is always the smallest distance from any point of the object.
Examiner responds:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a distance to an object includes distances to various parts of the object. While not shown in the markup, the claim now recites “a distance,” thus overcoming the antecedent basis issue.
Applicant argues:
Corresponding is not subjective - if the object has a width and length - that the actual width of the object is related to the width of the object within the image.
Examiner responds:
Different people can have different opinions as to whether one dimension corresponds to another. It appears that the intent of step (e) is to claim determining the dimension in the real world (e.g., distance in meters) and as shown in the image (e.g., distance in pixels).
101
Applicant argues:
The claims are not directed to simple visual estimation but rather to precise computational methods that address specific technical problems in vehicle camera systems.
Examiner responds:
The proposed solution is a trigonometric equation.
Applicant argues:
This formula involves complex mathematical operations including cosine squared calculations, trigonometric functions, and multiple variable computations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Examiner responds:
One can either image, or use pen and paper to draw a cosine curve: (image from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine)
PNG
media_image1.png
331
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
One could find the relevant angle, perhaps ¾ Π, find three quarters pi on the and axis, trace down to where this meets the cos(x) curve, and then trace left to see where this corresponds to the y axis (about -0.7). One could then multiply these two values together in their mind and arrive at 0.5. As argued by Applicant, a person of ordinary skill has at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering.
Applicant argues:
The claims operate in conjunction with real-time processing requirements, as evidenced by claim 2 which recites that "steps (b)-(e) are executed by a vehicle processing circuit, in real time.
Examiner responds:
The vehicle processing circuit is a generic computer, and there does not appear to be any new technology that increases the speed of this computation.
Applicant argues:
The claims are directed to autonomous vehicle safety systems, as evidenced by claim 9
Examiner responds:
Claim 9 was rejected under 112(a).
Applicant argues:
The specification discloses that the method may include "performing a driver assistance operation (for example - alerting a driver, suggesting a driving path or other action to the driver, performing an emergency breaking, performing a lane related driving operation, and the like)."
Examiner responds:
It is unclear how these actions are understood to distinguish over a mental process.
Applicant argues:
processing images that may include even millions of pixels is a highly complex task that requires non-transitory processors and/or processing circuits." As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0067]-[0068].
Examiner responds:
This is routinely done by generic computer components, and equivalent to a mental process of looking at a picture.
Applicant argues:
This represents a concrete technological improvement in autonomous vehicle safety systems that requires specialized computer vision algorithms and real-time processing capabilities that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Examiner responds:
There is no evidence of record that this was not already known in the art. Rather, documents like the Sedgwick thesis suggest that this technique was known.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A Method for Determining a Length of an Object From an Image Based on Camera Pitch Angle and the Horizon.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “to be projected in real world,” but the word ‘a’ is missing after “in.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12299956B2 in view of Zaheer as applied below. Further, Gotliber is replaced with Zaheer, claim 9 “calculating a distance from a camera to the object based on a camera height and a normal plane.” See also, Figs. 10A and 10B.
Both the pending claims and the conflicting patent are directed to calculating distances and dimensions of objects shown in pictures taken by vehicles, and is thus directed to the same problem as the present application. Further, any differences between the present claims and the claims in any of the conflicting patents are obvious in view of the prior art as applied below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine Zaheer with the conflicting patent in for implementation details (especially as the patent claims lack implementation details). Based on the findings herein, this is an example of “(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a) states “Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 593, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[A] reduction to practice does not occur until the inventor has determined that the invention will work for its intended purpose.”)” Here, the claimed invention only works in certain conditions, namely, that the ground is flat and level, the road is straight and the horizon is visible. However, the specification does not disclose these requirements. Had the inventor known these requirements, the inventor was required to disclosed them as part of the written description (i.e., they are necessary to make and use the invention). Because these were not disclosed, it appears that the inventor had not determined that the disclosure lacked critical information, and thus there was no reduction to practice. Accordingly, all claims are rejected.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “the image captures … road lane boundaries that are parallel to each other in a real world,” but this is new matter. The closest support in the specification is specification [0032] and [0053] that describe a pitch angle correction that will cause the boundaries to be parallel. This claim language is very similar to claim 1, step (c) of U.S. Pat. 12,299,956, but that patent has a different inventor.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “(c) determining … an actual vehicle camera pitch angle.” While this information could be known in advance (e.g., the camera was installed at a certain angle), there is not disclosure of how to determine this if it is not known in advance. (See also the rejection of claims 3 and 12.)
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “will cause pixels … to be projected in real world,” but this is new matter. Here, the claim recites projecting pixels into the real world, i.e., shining a light that corresponds to the pixels onto the road. However, the specification only describes mathematically operating on the pixels.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite a formula to calculate a distance between the vehicle and the object, but the formula is incorrect because it omits the height of the camera (see the diagram included at the beginning of the remarks).
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “(e) determining a dimension,” but the specification only supports determining lengths that are shown in the image, as opposed to all dimensions (e.g., the weight cannot be determined with the disclosed technology).
Claims 7 and 16 recite “updating the row-location horizon estimate based on the vehicle camera pitch angle correction,” but the specification does not show possession for this calculation (note that “row-location” is understood to be in the image, and it is unclear how the pitch of the camera would determine which row in the image is the horizon).
Claims 9 and 18 recite “autonomously driving,” but this is unlimited functional claiming. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “assuming that the camera is horizontal,” but “assuming” can be interpreted in more than one way. For example, it could mean that the determination occurs on the condition that the camera is horizontal, or it could mean that the math occurs where the camera is set to be horizontal. It is further unclear how to interpret the claim limitations regarding the camera’s pitch angle given the statement that this angle is assumed to be zero.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite both “H is a horizon estimate” and “yh is the horizon estimate,” but it is unclear how to interpret two different variables having the same value (note the antecedent basis).
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “corresponding,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite a method, and processes are eligible subject matter.
Claim 19 recites a vehicle processing circuit, and machines are eligible subject matter.
Claim 10 (and its dependents) recite a non-transitory computer readable medium, and manufactures are eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are a mental process because a person can look out a windshield and estimate the size of objects that they see. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210248392A1 (“Zaheer”) in view of US20230052270A1 (“Gotliber”)
1. A method for providing dimensional information related to an object, the method comprises:
(a) receiving an image that was acquired by a camera of a vehicle; the image captures the horizon, the object, and road lane boundaries that are parallel to each other in a real world; (Zaheer, Fig. 10A)
(b) determining an initial row-location horizon estimate and a row-location contact point estimate, assuming that the camera is horizontal, the row-location contact point estimate represents a contact between the object and a road on which the vehicle is positioned; (Zaheer, Fig. 4B)
(c) determining a camera pitch angle correction and an actual camera pitch angle, wherein the camera pitch angle correction, once applied, will cause pixels of the road lanes boundaries to be projected in real world on the road lane boundaries; (Zaheer, Fig. 10A and 10B)
(e) determining the dimension of the object based on the focal length of the camera, a corresponding dimension of the object within the image and the distance between the camera and the object. (Zaheer, [0016] “In the illustrated embodiment, any type of object detection system may be used to identify objects (e.g., via bounding boxes)”)
Zaheer is not relied on for the below claim language.
However, Gotliber teaches:
(d) calculating the distance between the vehicle and the object based on the vehicle camera pitch angle using the formula d = (1/cos2Θ) * (Fc*H)/(yc-yh) – H*tan(Θ), where Θ is the pitch angle of the camera, H is a horizon estimate, Fc is the focal length, yc is the row-location contact point estimate, and yh is the horizon estimate;
(Gotliber, Fig. 4 and [0086]-[0087] “FIG. 4 illustrates a prior art equation for calculating a distance between a vehicle camera that captures an image in which an object appears, and the object. … The equation is: d=(FC−HC)/(yb−yh).” Gotliber’s equation teaches where the pitch angle (i.e., Θ) is zero, which is within the claim scope.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Gotliber to the teachings of Zaheer such that Gotliber’s distance calculation is used in Zaheer’s distance calculation for the purpose of implementation details, or for simplified (i.e., constrained) situations.
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
2. The method according to claim 1 wherein steps (b)-(e) are executed by a vehicle processing circuit, in real time. (Zaheer, [0007] “Embodiments of the present disclosure relate using simple dashcam images as input followed by an algorithm that calculates distance in real-time.”)
4. The method according to claim 1 wherein the calculating of the dimension of the vehicle comprises multiplying the distance by a ratio between the (i) the dimension of the object within the image, and (ii) the focal length of the camera. (Zaheer, Fig. 4B (note the bounding box))
5. The method according to claim 1 wherein the dimension of the object is a height of the object. (Zaheer, Fig. 4B (note the bounding box))
7. The method according to claim 1 comprising calculating a new row-location horizon estimate, wherein the calculating comprises updating the initial row-location horizon estimate based on the camera pitch angle correction. (Zaheer, [0115] “Thus, the computed camera height and road plane normal may be reused during subsequent operations performed on images captured by a given camera, as discussed more fully in step 810 and FIG. 12.” Zaheer computes camera height in [0114], relying on the angle as per the equation from [0113]. Zaheer’s “reused during subsequent operations” teaches the claimed updating based on angle.)
9. The method according to claim 1 comprising autonomously driving the vehicle based on the dimension of the object and the distance between the vehicle and the object. (Zaheer, [0048] “The road plane normal is along the Z-axis (upwards), the Y-axis is in the driving direction” [0048] is describing Fig. 4A.)
Claims 10-12, 14, 16, 17 are rejected as per claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9. See also, Zaheer, claim 11 “11. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.”
Claim 19 is rejected as per claim 1. See also, Zaheer, Fig. 1 for the claimed “vehicle processing circuit.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US11288833B2 – claim 1, “calculating, using the processing circuitry, an estimated distance to the target vehicle based on the second world width and the second ratio.”
US10366263B2 – “Object detection for video camera self-calibration”
US11093763B2 - “Onboard environment recognition device”
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 DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663