DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered and made of record.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 1-11 and the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of claims 1-11 are expressly withdrawn.
In view of Applicant’s argument that the limitations describe an improvement to object detection technology, Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection to claims 1-11 since the limitations, as a whole, are indicative to significantly more than just the abstract idea and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lee fails to teach or suggest any configuration of mutually converting and interpolating data having different properties of a two-dimensional image and a three-dimensional sensor and that the processing apparatus of claim 1 is based on the premise of a multi-sensor and includes an essential requirement of interpolation by data conversion between different sensors, the Examiner respectfully notes that this is not reflected in the language of claim 1. Specifically, Examiner notes that claim 1 merely recites two-dimensional image information (where three-dimensional information inherently includes two-dimensional information), not a two-dimensional image, and does not require different sensors. In addition, the limitations of “with conversion of the three-dimensional sensor information” and “with conversion of the two-dimensional image information” does not require converting from two-dimension to three-dimension or vice versa. Thus, Examiner maintains that Lee does still teach the limitations of claim 1. Examiner also suggests considering prior art Weon et al. (Object Recognition Based Interpolation with 3D LIDAR and Vision for Autonomous Driving of an Intelligent Vehicle) previously included in the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) mailed on 01/20/2026, which discloses the concept of mutually converting and interpolating data having different properties of a two-dimensional image and three-dimensional sensor image and includes interpolation by data conversion between different sensors.
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: “three dimensional object detection portion”, “position estimation portion”, “processing portion”, and “two-dimensional object detection portion” in claims 13 and 14.
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 § 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 is 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 processor that executes a program to operate (Para. 0025 lines 1-4 and 9-19, 0026 lines 1-6, "processor") as:
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 two-dimensional image information with conversion of the three-dimensional sensor information or interpolates the missing three-dimensional sensor information with conversion of the two-dimensional image information (Para. 0027 lines 1-8, 0028 lines 1-11, 0030 lines 1-3 and 18-23, 0044 lines 1-11, "interpolate" "transform").
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 13, 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 claim 14, 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.
Claims 2-11 are 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.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights