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 .
Claim Objections
The claims 1-6 are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amended claims filed on 2/13/2024 were received and considered.
Claims 3-5 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in German Patent Office on February 14, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10 2023 103 479.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matschke (DE 102018203242 A1) and further in view of Becker et al. (US 20060220910 A1) referred as Becker hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Matschke teaches Method for determining a height (H) of a trailer (12) of a motor vehicle (10), (“the height of the vehicle is determined as an external dimension” Matschke, p. 3) and (“The dimension of the vehicle combination including trailer is then determined again” Matschke, p. 4-5)
in which at least one image of a ground area (22) of the motor vehicle (10) is recorded and in which the image is evaluated by means of an electronic computing device (20) of the motor vehicle (10), (“in the first state, to aggregate measurements on different images with shadow throws until the desired outside dimension, for example the height of the vehicle, has been determined with sufficient certainty.” Matschke, p. 4) and fig. 1
characterized in that a ground area (22a, 22b) to the side of the motor vehicle (10) is recorded, and a shadow boundary (G) of a shadow (24) of the trailer (12) on the ground area (22a, 22b) to the side is determined in the recording and the height (H) is determined by means of the electronic computing device (20) as a function of a shadow length (L) of the shadow (24) relative to the motor vehicle (10). (“1 shows an exemplary situation in which a vehicle 1 sideways from the sun as a light source 3 is lit and a shadow 21 from which ultimately the height 11 , h of the vehicle 1 is evaluable.” Matschke, p. 5), fig. 1, and (“For example, the external dimension of the vehicle can be determined from the ratio of the corresponding dimension of the detected component to the representation of this dimension in the shadow. For example, if a vehicle's rear end is 90 cm high and produces a 40 cm shadow, this provides the information that the shadow is reduced by a factor of 2.25. If then the entire continuous shadow of the vehicle, whose edge represents the outline of the vehicle body, has a height of 120 cm, it follows that the vehicle is currently 270 cm high.” Matschke, p. 4) and fig. 1.
However, Matschke does not teach image recorded by means of at least one optical detection device (14a, 14b).
Becker teaches image recorded by means of at least one optical detection device (14a, 14b). (“the recording of ambient data comprises recording three-dimensional images of the surroundings by means of an optical 3-D system.” Becker, para. [0006])
Matschke and Becker are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in estimating dimensions.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matschke in light of Becker’s optical detection device. One would have been motivated to do so because it can help each obstacle which is located within the measuring range of the sensor system to be located with high accuracy using the distance information which is also supplied. (Becker, para. [0012])
Regarding claim 2, Matschke does not teach Method characterized in that a plurality of images is generated and evaluated by means of the optical detection device (14a, 14b).
Becker teaches Method characterized in that a plurality of images is generated and evaluated by means of the optical detection device (14a, 14b). (“the recording of ambient data comprises the successive recording of adjacent component images of the area of interest, i.e. the area of interest is scanned by the 3-D sensor system.” Becker, para. [0010])
Matschke and Becker are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in estimating dimensions.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matschke in light of Becker’s plurality of images generated and evaluated by the optical detection device. One would have been motivated to do so because it can help each obstacle which is located within the measuring range of the sensor system to be located with high accuracy using the distance information which is also supplied. (Becker, para. [0012])
Regarding claim 3, Matschke does not teach an illumination device (18) arranged on the motor vehicle (10) is used during the method.
Becker teaches an illumination device (18) arranged on the motor vehicle (10) is used during the method. (“The optical 3-D sensor system then advantageously comprises a pulsed infrared lighting source and an image sensor which is sensitive in the infrared range, for the purpose of recording the light pulses which are reflected in the external area of the vehicle.” Becker, para. [0015])
Matschke and Becker are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in estimating dimensions.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matschke in light of Becker’s illumination device. One would have been motivated to do so because it can help each obstacle which is located within the measuring range of the sensor system to be located with high accuracy using the distance information which is also supplied. (Becker, para. [0012])
Regarding claim 4, Matschke does not teach further images are generated by means of a further optical detection device (14b) on a passenger-side exterior mirror (16b) of the motor vehicle (10).
Becker teaches further images are generated by means of a further optical detection device (14b) on a passenger-side exterior mirror (16b) of the motor vehicle (10). (“an optical 3-D sensor system which is arranged on a front-passenger-seat-side external area, for example on the exterior mirror 7, of the vehicle records in succession various adjacent component images of the parking space.” Becker, para. [0024])
Matschke and Becker are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in estimating dimensions.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matschke in light of Becker’s optical detection device on a passenger-side exterior mirror. One would have been motivated to do so because it can help each obstacle which is located within the measuring range of the sensor system to be located with high accuracy using the distance information which is also supplied. (Becker, para. [0012])
Regarding claim 5, Matschke teaches electronic computing device (20) is electronically connected to a driver assistance system of the motor vehicle (10). (“the camera can be an environment camera that is part of an existing driver assistance system. In particular, it may be a camera that is used in a system for at least partially automated driving. It can then be used on existing and officially approved hardware, which facilitates the approval of an assistance system that performs the procedure.” Matschke, p. 2)
Regarding claim 6, Matschke teaches Electronic computing device (20) with processors and circuitry as well as software for carrying out a method according to the invention for determining a height (H) of a trailer (12) of a motor vehicle (10), (“the method can be implemented completely or partially in software and, in particular, can make do with the use of hardware that is already present in a vehicle anyway. For example, the software can be marketed as an update or upgrade to an existing ECU or provided as "Software as a Service".” Matschke, p. 5) by means of which at least one image of a ground area (22a, 22b) to the side of the motor vehicle (10) (Matschke, fig. 1)
can be evaluated to determine the height (H). (“the height of the vehicle is determined as an external dimension by evaluating a distance between the vehicle and a reference point of the shadow cast from the image and by removing from the shadow cast, and / or from the spatial orientation of the light source to the vehicle, determining an angle at which the light from the light source is hit when imaging the vehicle.” Matschke, p. 3)
Becker teaches taken by means of an optical detection device (14a, 14b) (“To do this, an optical 3-D sensor system which is arranged on a front-passenger-seat-side external area, for example on the exterior mirror 7, of the vehicle records in succession various adjacent component images of the parking space.” Becker, para. [0024])
Matschke and Becker are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in estimating dimensions.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matschke in light of Becker’s optical detection device. One would have been motivated to do so because it can help each obstacle which is located within the measuring range of the sensor system to be located with high accuracy using the distance information which is also supplied. (Becker, para. [0012])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240233392 A1 DRIVER ASSISTANCE APPARATUS AND VEHICLE, AND RECORDING MEDIUM CONTAINING COMPUTER PROGRAM
US 20170197807 A1 ELEVATOR SYSTEM
US 20190012537 A1 METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING AN OBJECT IN A SURROUNDING REGION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE, DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEM AND MOTOR VEHICLE
US 20200334485 A1 SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ANALYZING AN IMAGE OF A VEHICLE
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARDIS SOHRABY whose telephone number is (571)270-0809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am till 6pm.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/PARDIS SOHRABY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664