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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 21, 2026 has been entered.
In the submission, the applicants amended claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 13-15 and 17, and added new claims 22-23.
Response to Amendment
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 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,830,160. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 is anticipated by claim 1, respectively, of the US Patent No. 11,830,160. In particular, both sets of claims recite estimation height and depth of a structure on the road to create a scene structure.
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 22-23 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.
In regards to claims 22-23, the examiner was unable to find explicit or implicit support for “omitting at least one image positioned in between a pair of selected images” and “selected based … on a maximum time separation between images”. The paragraph [0034] of the specification merely recites selecting images that are “apart by a time gap”. The paragraph [0034] fails to recite the limitations of new added claim 22-23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, the applicants state that “Stein is silent with respect to using the outputs of a neural network to identify a set of pixels of an image corresponding to a plurality of objects, and grouping those pixels independently of object type to determine object locations.” The examiner respectfully traverses. Stein in paragraphs [0205]-[0208] teaches using a DNN to determine height data of pixels in an image. The pixels in with large negative height value are grouped to form a region that is identified as a puddle. Furthermore, Stein teaches using location of the puddles to perform evasive action. (See Stein paragraph [0166]).
Therefore, the Examiner submits that Stein teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Similarly, Stein teaches all the limitations of independent claims 8 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-13 and 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PgPub. No. 2019/0325595 by Stein et al. (hereinafter ‘Stein’).
In regards to claim 1, Stein teaches a method comprising: computing, based at least on one or more neural networks processing a plurality of images, (See Stein paragraphs [0043]-[0044], Stein teaches acquiring images from a sensor attached to the front of the car.)
outputs indicative of: one or more depth estimations corresponding to one or more pixels of one or more images of the plurality of images; and (See Stein paragraphs [0142] and [0152], Stein teaches determining depth at pixels in the images.)
one or more height estimations, relative to a driving surface, corresponding to the one or more pixels of the one or more images of the plurality of images; (See Stein paragraphs [0037], [0045] and [0062], Stein teaches determining height relative to the driving surface in the plurality of images.)
using the outputs to identify a set of pixels of an image corresponding to a plurality of objects existing above the driving surface; grouping the pixels of the set independently of object type to determine locations of the plurality of objects; and (See Stein paragraphs [0205]-[0208], Stein teaches using a DNN to determine height data of pixels in an image. The pixels in with large negative height value are grouped to form a region that is identified as a puddle.)
performing one or more operations corresponding to a machine based at least on locations of the plurality of objects. (See Stein paragraph [0166], Stein teaches assessing vehicle operations based on the location of determined puddles.)
In regards to claim 2, Stein teaches further comprising: generating a data structure that indicates a ratio of depth and height corresponding to the one or more pixels based at least on the one or more depth estimations and the one or more height estimations, wherein the outputs include the data structure. (See Stein paragraphs [0105]-[0108], Stein teaches determining structure map.)
In regards to claim 3, Stein teaches obtaining moving data of the objects from one or more inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors, wherein the outputs are generated based at least in part on the moving data. (See Stein paragraph [0126]).
In regards to claim 4, Stein teaches wherein images of the plurality of images are captured using a single camera at a plurality of different times. (See Stein paragraph [0043]-[0044]).
In regards to claim 5, Stein teaches wherein the outputs comprise one or more resolutions that are smaller than a resolution of the plurality of images. (See Stein paragraph [0070]).
In regards to claim 6, Stein teaches wherein grouping the pixels of the set comprises performing a connected component analysis on the one or more outputs. (See Stein paragraph [0208]).
In regards to claim 7, Stein teaches further comprising: correcting at least one interval of time between images in the plurality of images using sensor data. (See Stein paragraph [0094]).
Claim 8 recites limitations of that are similar to claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected similarly as claim 1.
In regards to claim 9, Stein teaches wherein grouping the pixels comprises performing a connected components analysis. (See Stein paragraph [0208]).
In regards to claim 10, Stein teaches wherein the one or more neural networks receive at least one of radar data or LiDAR data as input to generate at least one of the one or more height estimations or the one or more depth estimations. (See Stein paragraph [0198]).
In regards to claim 11, Stein teaches wherein the two or more images are captured by a monocular camera and are associated with different time stamps. (See Stein paragraph [0043]-[0044]).
In regards to claim 12, Stein teaches wherein the system corresponds to a semi- autonomous vehicle or an autonomous vehicle. (See Stein Figure 2).
In regards to claim 13, Stein wherein grouping the pixels comprises generating a plurality of bounding boxes. (See Stein paragraph [0126]).
Claim 15 recites limitations of that are similar to claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected similarly as claim 1.
Claims 16-20 recite limitations that are similar to that of claims 2-5 and 12, respectively. Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected similarly as claims 2-5 and 12, respectively.
In regards to claim 21, Stein teaches wherein at least one of the one or more neural networks was trained using photometric loss. (See Stein paragraph [0058]).
In regards to claim 22, Stein teaches further comprising: selecting the plurality of images from a set of consecutively captured images by omitting at least one image positioned in between a pair of selected images within the set of consecutively captured images. (See Stein paragraphs [0047], Stein teaches capturing a sequence of images.).
In regards 23, Stein teaches wherein the pair of selected images are selected based, at least in part, on a maximum time separation between images of the plurality of images. (See Stein paragraphs [0047], Stein teaches capturing a sequence of images.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 14, the applied art does not teach or suggest “generate a third image based at least in part on warping a first image captured during a first interval of time towards a second image captured during a second interval of time; generate a fourth image based at least in part on the third image and a ratio of height and depth for a particular pixel within the first image and the second image, wherein the ratio is generated using the one or more neural networks; and update the one or more neural networks based at least in part on the fourth image.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UTPAL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-5729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-5:30.
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.
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights