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 of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 9-10 recite “the missing one of the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information” which Examiner suggests amending to “the missing two-dimensional image information or the missing three-dimensional sensor information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 11-12 recite “the missing one of the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information” which Examiner suggests amending to “the missing two-dimensional image information or the missing three-dimensional sensor information”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) are: “processing portion”, “three dimensional object detection portion”, “position estimation portion”, “two-dimensional object detection portion” in claims 1-11.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "of another of the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information" in Lines 11-12 and “the two-dimensional image information or the three-dimensional sensor information at a missing time” in Lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as it is unclear as to what another of the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information is referring to (for example, another what, another two-dimensional image information and three-dimensional sensor information that is not what was input, another piece of information from the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information already input, or something else) and there is no earlier mention of two-dimensional image information or the three-dimensional sensor information at a missing time. Examiner suggests amending the claims to clarify what is meant. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation in Lines 11-12 to be of another two-dimensional image information and three-dimensional sensor information that is not the two-dimensional image information and three-dimensional sensor information that was input at the arbitrary time and the limitation in Lines 12-13 to be “two-dimensional image information or three-dimensional sensor information at a missing time” (deleting “the” before “two-dimensional” and before “three-dimensional”).
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the missing three-dimensional sensor information" in Lines 4-5 and 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the missing three-dimensional sensor information is referring to the missing three-dimensional sensor information disclosed in claim 1 or the missing three-dimensional sensor information disclosed earlier in Lines 2-3 of claim 2. Examiner believes "the missing three-dimensional sensor information" in Lines 4-5 and 9-10 are referring to the missing three-dimensional sensor information disclosed in claim 1 and suggests amending the limitation “when three-dimensional sensor information is missing” in Lines 2-3 of claim 2 to “when the three-dimensional sensor information that is input at the arbitrary time is missing”.
Examiner notes that claims 3 and 4 also recite “the missing three-dimensional sensor information” and would have the same insufficient antecedent basis issue as disclosed above for claim 2. Examiner has interpreted the limitation in the same way as in claim 2.
Claim 2 also recites the limitation "estimates a position of a three-dimensional object interpolated based on a position of the three-dimensional object" in Lines 6-7. It is unclear as to whether the limitation should be interpreted as estimating a position of an interpolated three-dimensional object (where the position of the interpolated three-dimensional object is based on a position of the three-dimensional object) or estimating a position of a three-dimensional object that is interpolated (where the three-dimensional object is interpolated based on a position of the three-dimensional object). Examiner believes the limitation should be interpreted as estimating a position of an interpolated three-dimensional object (where the position of the interpolated three-dimensional object is based on a position of the three-dimensional object) and suggests amending the limitation to "estimates a position of an interpolated three-dimensional object based on a position of the three-dimensional object".
Claim 3 recites the limitations "detects a three-dimensional object included in each of a plurality of three-dimensional sensor information prior to the missing three-dimensional sensor information" in Lines 2-4 and “the three-dimensional object detected by the three-dimensional object detection portion” in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the three-dimensional object is detected prior to a time associated with the missing three-dimensional sensor information, whether the each of the plurality of three-dimensional sensor information is obtained prior to a time associated with the missing three-dimensional sensor information, or something else, and it is unclear as to which three-dimensional object is being referred to (as Lines 2-3 of Claim 3 recites a three-dimensional object detected by the three-dimensional object detection portion and Claim 2 also recites a three-dimensional object detected by the three-dimensional object detection portion). Examiner suggests clarifying what is meant by the limitations. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation in Lines 2-4 to be each of the plurality of three-dimensional sensor information is obtained prior to a time associated with the missing three-dimensional sensor information and the limitation in Lines 6-7 to be referring to the three-dimensional object included in each of the plurality of three-dimensional sensor information recited in Claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "detects a three-dimensional object included in each of a plurality of three-dimensional sensor information prior to the missing three-dimensional sensor information" in Lines 2-4 and “the three-dimensional object detected by the three-dimensional object detection portion” in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the three-dimensional object is detected prior to a time associated with the missing three-dimensional sensor information, whether the each of the plurality of three-dimensional sensor information is obtained prior to a time associated with the missing three-dimensional sensor information, or something else, and it is unclear as to which three-dimensional object is being referred to (as Lines 2-3 of Claim 4 recites a three-dimensional object detected by the three-dimensional object detection portion and Claim 2 also recites a three-dimensional object detected by the three-dimensional object detection portion). Examiner suggests clarifying what is meant by the limitations. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation in Lines 2-4 to be each of the plurality of three-dimensional sensor information is obtained prior to a time associated with the missing three-dimensional sensor information and the limitation in Lines 6-7 to be referring to the three-dimensional object included in each of the plurality of three-dimensional sensor information recited in Claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "estimates a position of the three-dimensional object after the missing three-dimensional sensor information from a position of the three-dimensional object detected by the three-dimensional object detection portion" in Lines 2-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the position of the three-dimensional object is estimated after a time associated with the missing three-dimensional sensor information (which then the position of the three-dimensional object would be estimated from itself), whether a position of the three-dimensional object after a time associated with the missing three-dimensional sensor information is estimated, or something else. Examiner believes the limitation should be interpreted as estimating a position of the three-dimensional object after a time associated with the missing three-dimensional sensor information from the position of the three-dimensional object detected by the three-dimensional object detection portion (that is disclosed in claim 2) and suggests amending to clarify the limitation.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the missing three-dimensional sensor information" in Lines 4-5 and 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the missing three-dimensional sensor information is referring to the missing three-dimensional sensor information disclosed in claim 1 or the missing three-dimensional sensor information disclosed earlier in Lines 2-3 of claim 6. Examiner believes "the missing three-dimensional sensor information" in Lines 4-5 and 6-7 are referring to the missing three-dimensional sensor information disclosed in claim 1 and suggests amending the limitation “when three-dimensional sensor information is missing” in Lines 2-3 of claim 6 to “when the three-dimensional sensor information that is input at the arbitrary time is missing”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the missing two-dimensional image information" in Lines 4 and 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the missing two-dimensional image information is referring to the two-dimensional image information disclosed in claim 1 or the missing two-dimensional image information disclosed earlier in Lines 2-3 of claim 7. Examiner believes "the missing two-dimensional image information" in Lines 4 and 8-9 are referring to the missing two-dimensional image information disclosed in claim 1 and suggests amending the limitation “when two-dimensional image information is missing” in Lines 2-3 of claim 7 to “when the two-dimensional image information that is input at the arbitrary time is missing”.
Examiner notes that claims 8 and 9 also recite “the missing two-dimensional image information” and would have the same insufficient antecedent basis issue as disclosed above for claim 7. Examiner has interpreted the limitation in the same way as in claim 7.
Claim 7 also recites the limitation "estimates a position of a two-dimensional object interpolated based on a position of the two-dimensional object" in Lines 5-6. It is unclear as to whether the limitation should be interpreted as estimating a position of an interpolated two-dimensional object (where the position of the interpolated two-dimensional object is based on a position of the two-dimensional object) or estimating a position of a two-dimensional object that is interpolated (where the two-dimensional object is interpolated based on a position of the two-dimensional object). Examiner believes the limitation should be interpreted as estimating a position of an interpolated two-dimensional object (where the position of the interpolated two-dimensional object is based on a position of the two-dimensional object) and suggests amending the limitation to "estimates a position of an interpolated two-dimensional object based on a position of the two-dimensional object".
Claim 8 recites the limitations "detects a two-dimensional object included in each of a plurality of two-dimensional image information prior to the missing two-dimensional image information" in Lines 2-4 and “the two-dimensional object detected by the two-dimensional object detection portion” in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the two-dimensional object is detected prior to a time associated with the missing two-dimensional image information, whether the each of the plurality of two-dimensional image information is obtained prior to a time associated with the missing two-dimensional image information, or something else, and it is unclear as to which two-dimensional object is being referred to (as Lines 2-3 of Claim 8 recites a two-dimensional object detected by the two-dimensional object detection portion and Claim 7 also recites a two-dimensional object detected by two-dimensional object detection portion). Examiner suggests clarifying what is meant by the limitations. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation in Lines 2-4 to be each of the plurality of two-dimensional image information is obtained prior to a time associated with the missing two-dimensional image information and the limitation in Lines 6-7 to be referring to the two-dimensional object included in each of the plurality of two-dimensional image information recited in Claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "detects a two-dimensional object included in each of a plurality of two-dimensional image information prior to the missing two-dimensional image information" in Lines 2-4 and “the two-dimensional object detected by the two-dimensional object detection portion” in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the two-dimensional object is detected prior to a time associated with the missing two-dimensional image information, whether the each of the plurality of two-dimensional image information is obtained prior to a time associated with the missing two-dimensional image information, or something else, and it is unclear as to which two-dimensional object is being referred to (as Lines 2-3 of Claim 9 recites a two-dimensional object detected by the two-dimensional object detection portion and Claim 7 also recites a two-dimensional object detected by the two-dimensional object detection portion). Examiner suggests clarifying what is meant by the limitations. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation in Lines 2-4 to be each of the plurality of two-dimensional image information is obtained prior to a time associated with the missing two-dimensional image information and the limitation in Lines 6-7 to be referring to the two-dimensional object included in each of the plurality of two-dimensional image information recited in Claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "estimates a position of the two-dimensional object after the missing two-dimensional image information from a position of the two-dimensional object detected by the two-dimensional object detection portion" in Lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the position of the two-dimensional object is estimated after a time associated with the missing two-dimensional image information (which then the position of the two-dimensional object would be estimated from itself), whether a position of the two-dimensional object after a time associated with the missing two-dimensional image information is estimated, or something else. Examiner believes the limitation should be interpreted as estimating a position of the two-dimensional object after a time associated with the missing two-dimensional image information from the position of the two-dimensional object detected by the two-dimensional object detection portion (that is disclosed in claim 7) and suggests amending to clarify the limitation.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the missing two-dimensional image information" in Lines 4 and 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to whether the missing two-dimensional image information is referring to the missing two-dimensional image information disclosed in claim 1 or the missing two-dimensional image information disclosed earlier in Lines 2-3 of claim 11. Examiner believes "the missing two-dimensional image information" in Lines 4 and 5-6 are referring to the missing two-dimensional image information disclosed in claim 1 and suggests amending the limitation “when two-dimensional image information is missing” in Lines 2-3 of claim 11 to “when the two-dimensional image information that is input at the arbitrary time is missing”.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "of another of the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information" in Lines 13-14 and “the two-dimensional image information or the three-dimensional sensor information at a missing time” in Lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as it is unclear as to what another of the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information is referring to (for example, another what, another two-dimensional image information and three-dimensional sensor information that is not what was input, another piece of information from the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information already input, or something else) and there is no earlier mention of two-dimensional image information or the three-dimensional sensor information at a missing time. Examiner suggests amending the claims to clarify what is meant. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the limitation in Lines 13-14 to be of another two-dimensional image information and three-dimensional sensor information that is not the two-dimensional image information and three-dimensional sensor information that was input at the arbitrary time and the limitation in Lines 14-15 to be “two-dimensional image information or three-dimensional sensor information at a missing time” (deleting “the” before “two-dimensional” and before “three-dimensional”).
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the steps of interpolating missing two-dimensional image information or missing three-dimensional sensor information which are mathematical calculations and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of outputting an object detection result based on information obtained by interpolating to an object-tracking apparatus amount to mere data output recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional element of the processing portion (claim 1) and processing apparatus (claim 12) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of the processing portion (claim 1) and processing apparatus (claim 12) are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element of outputting an object detection result based on information obtained by interpolating to an object-tracking apparatus is recited at a high level of generality that is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, without any limits on how the data is output to the object-tracking apparatus. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-11 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-11 are also not patent eligible.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2018/0217233).
With regards to claim 1, Lee discloses a processing apparatus comprising:
a processing portion (Para. 0025 lines 1-4 and 9-19, 0026 lines 1-6, "processor") that interpolates, when at least one of two-dimensional image information and three-dimensional sensor information that are input at an arbitrary time is missing, the missing two-dimensional image information or the missing three-dimensional sensor information (Para. 0027 lines 5-8, 0043 lines 1-9 and 17-21, 0044 lines 1-11, "missing sections" "interpolate") and outputs an object detection result based on two-dimensional image information and three-dimensional sensor information obtained by interpolating the missing two-dimensional image information or the missing three-dimensional sensor information to an object-tracking apparatus (Para. 0027 lines 1-8, 0030 lines 18-23, 0044 lines 1-11, 0047 lines 1-2, 0048 lines 1-5, "output of the observed object" "tracking"),
wherein the processing portion (Para. 0025 lines 1-4 and 9-19, 0026 lines 1-6, "processor") interpolates the missing one of the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information with conversion of another of the two-dimensional image information and the three-dimensional sensor information, or interpolates the two-dimensional image information or the three-dimensional sensor information at a missing time with estimation based on two-dimensional image information or three-dimensional sensor information at another time (Para. 0027 lines 1-8, 0028 lines 1-11, 0030 lines 1-3 and 18-23, 0044 lines 1-11, "interpolate" "transform").
With regards to claim 12, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 1 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 2, Lee (US 2018/0217233) disclose obtaining position information of the vehicle and interpolating missing three-dimensional sensor information with three-dimensional object information, however, there is no mention of detecting a three-dimensional object included in three-dimensional sensor information close to the missing three-dimensional sensor information, estimating a position of an interpolated three-dimensional object based on a position of the three-dimensional object, where the missing three-dimensional sensor information is interpolated based on position information of the interpolated three-dimensional object. Kutliroff et al. (US 2014/0258942) discloses interpolating missing frames based on 3D positions of objects, however, there is no mention of the rest of the limitations of the claim. Takeda et al. (US 11,200,678) discloses the concept of interpolating missing frames based on position information, however, there is no mention of three-dimensional sensor information or three-dimensional object. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claims 3-5, they are dependent on claim 2.
With regards to claim 6, Lee (US 2018/0217233) disclose interpolating missing three-dimensional sensor information with three-dimensional object information, however, there is no mention of detecting a three-dimensional object from two-dimensional image information close to the missing three-dimensional sensor information, wherein the missing three-dimensional sensor information is interpolated based on the three-dimensional object. Kutliroff et al. (US 2014/0258942) discloses interpolating missing frames based on three-dimensional object information, however, there is no mention of the rest of the limitations of the claim. Takeda et al. (US 11,200,678) discloses the concept of interpolating missing frames based on two-dimensional object information, however, there is no mention of detecting a three-dimensional object from two-dimensional image information close to the missing three-dimensional sensor information. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claim 7, Lee (US 2018/0217233) disclose obtaining position information of the vehicle and interpolating missing three-dimensional sensor information with three-dimensional object information, however, there is no mention of detecting a two-dimensional object included in two-dimensional image information close to the missing two-dimensional image information, estimating a position of an interpolated two-dimensional object based on a position of the two-dimensional object, where the missing two-dimensional image information is interpolated based on position information of the interpolated two-dimensional object. Kutliroff et al. (US 2014/0258942) discloses interpolating missing frames based on 3D positions of objects, however, there is no mention of detecting a two-dimensional object included in two-dimensional image information close to the missing two-dimensional image information. Takeda et al. (US 11,200,678) discloses the concept of interpolating missing frames based on position information, however, there is no mention of the rest of the limitations of the claim. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claims 8-10, they are dependent on claim 7.
With regards to claim 11, Lee (US 2018/0217233) disclose interpolating missing three-dimensional sensor information with three-dimensional object information, however, there is no mention of detecting a two-dimensional object from three-dimensional sensor information close to the missing two-dimensional image information, wherein the missing two-dimensional image information is interpolated based on the two-dimensional object. Kutliroff et al. (US 2014/0258942) discloses interpolating missing frames based on three-dimensional object information, however, there is no mention of detecting a two-dimensional object from three-dimensional sensor information close to the missing two-dimensional image information. Takeda et al. (US 11,200,678) discloses the concept of interpolating missing frames based on two-dimensional object information, however, there is no mention of the rest of the limitations of the claim. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672