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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action, filed 1/27/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Applicant has amended claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17, and 20. Claims 12 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Singhal (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0057213).
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) is/are:
an interface hardware configured to in claim 8 described in ¶37.
a memory unit for in claim 8 described in ¶37.
a processing unit in claim 8 described in ¶37.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess (U.S. Patent No 2020/0193643) in view of Singhal (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0057213).
Regarding Claim 1, Hess teaches a method for distance estimation of an object from a vehicle, comprising: obtaining an image frame including the object (¶23 The captured images may include a number of objects in the surrounding environment, for example, a light pole 220, a billboard 230, a road sign 240, a crosswalk 242, a road line 246, a curb 244, etc;)
identifying a first set of key points of the object from the image frame (¶24 the vehicle 210 may use a computing system to process the captured images, and to detect/extract a number of features from the captured images. In particular embodiments, the featured may be detected using one or more feature detectors which may classify the features into one or more classifications. In particular embodiments, a feature may be associated with a number of pixels and a descriptor. To detect a feature from an image, the computing system may first identify a group of pixels in the image (e.g., pixels associated with a corner, an edge, a shape, an object, etc.) and one or more associated attributes of the pixels (e.g., patterns, positions, areas, colors, etc.);)
obtaining a second set of key points that correlates to the first set of key points from a non-volatile memory (¶17 the computing system 120 may process collected data (e.g., image data, GPS location data, timestamp, motion sensor data, etc.) and transmit the processed results to a cloud 150 through a communication connection 152. For example, the computing system 120 may detect and extract a number of features (e.g., objects, corners, shapes, sizes, three-dimensional vectors, etc.) from the images and may transmit the extracted features and related data to the cloud 150 through a wireless connection… The server 160 may receive/access the extracted features and related data through the cloud 150;)
obtaining spatial information about the second set of key points (¶26 each image captured by the camera 212 may be associated with a GPS location as determined by a GPS sensor of the vehicle 210 to indicate where the image is captured. The GPS location together with the image itself may be used to determine relative positions (e.g., distances, directions) of objects or features in surrounding environment with respect to the vehicle 210) from the non-volatile memory (¶17 the computing system 120 may process collected data (e.g., image data, GPS location data, timestamp, motion sensor data, etc.) and transmit the processed results to a cloud 150 through a communication connection 152… The server 160 may receive/access the extracted features and related data through the cloud 150;) and
evaluating a distance of the object from the vehicle based on the first set of key points and the spatial information about the second set of key points (¶26 The GPS location together with the image itself may be used to determine relative positions (e.g., distances, directions) of objects or features in surrounding environment with respect to the vehicle 210. For example, the distance and geometric relationship between the vehicle 210 and the billboard 230 may be determined based on one or more images captured by the camera 212 using computer vision algorithms.)
Hess does not explicitly disclose wherein the spatial information about the second set of key points is indicative of relative positions of the key points of the second set defined in distances and orientations.
Singhal is in the same field of art of image analysis. Further, Singhal teaches obtaining spatial information about the second set of key points, wherein the spatial information about the second set of key points is indicative of relative positions of the key points of the second set defined in distances and orientations (¶41 In step 302, process 300 can use one or more digital camera(s) 208 to obtain digital images of the landscape beneath the aircraft. In step 304, process 300 can identify key points in the landscape using a SIFT and/or other feature point detection algorithm; ¶29 Key point can be a spatial location in a digital image) and evaluating the key points (¶41 In step 306, process 300 can then analyze how key points have moved between frames to infer the motion of the aircraft. This can be relative to a previously determined position in terms of lat-long coordinates. In this way, the location of the aircraft can be determined. The direction, velocity, acceleration, and other aircraft travel datapoints can also be inferred as well.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hess by using spatial information to evaluate the key points that is taught by Singhal; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to improve “vehicle” navigation without GPS (Singhal¶4).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Hess in view of Singhal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image frame is captured by a device that is associated with a vehicle, a stationary object, or a drone (Hess, ¶16 the vehicle system 110 may include or may be associated with one or more cameras 112 (e.g., a mobile phone camera, a dash camera, a data collection device camera, a safety camera, a navigation camera, or any other suitable cameras).)
Regarding Claim 4, Hess in view of Singhal discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the non-volatile memory includes descriptors associated with the first or the second set of key points (Hess, ¶23 The objects and the related features may be descripted by one or more geometric elements, for example, a line, a surface, a volume, a shape, a two-dimensional vector, a three-dimensional vector, a dot, an angle, a converging point, a pattern, etc; ¶24 a feature may be associated with a number of pixels and a descriptor.)
Regarding Claim 5, Hess in view of Singhal discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the distance of the object from the vehicle is evaluated based on the descriptors (¶39 The extracted features as descripted by the corresponding descriptors may be transmitted to the a sever, together with GPS location data, timestamp data, or other related data. The server may use the extracted features and associated data to identify the corner 414B and 420B as the reference features that match the corner 414A and 414A, respectively; ¶41 The server may directly compare a descriptor associated with a feature (e.g., corner 414A, 420A) extracted from the distorted images (e.g., image 400A) and a number of high definition features (e.g., corner 414B, corner 420B) that are within a threshold distance to the GPS location associated with the extracted feature. For example, the server may firstly identify the corners 414B, 420B, and a number other high definition features that are within a threshold distance to the GPS location of the corner 414A.)
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above as well as in accordance with Hess further teaching on: an interface hardware configured to obtain an image frame (¶23 the camera 212 may capture a number of images or videos for the scenes in the surrounding environment of the vehicle 210;) a memory unit for storing the image frame (¶16 The computing system 120 may store the collected data at a local storage of the computing system 120 or/and transmit all or a representative portion (e.g., data process results) of data to a database in a cloud 150 through a communication connection 152;) a processing unit coupled to the interface hardware and the memory unit (Fig. 1, 120 computing system)
Claim 9 recites limitations similar to claim 2 and is rejecter under the same reasoning.
Claim 11 recites limitations similar to claim 4 and is rejecter under the same reasoning.
Claim 12 recites limitations similar to claim 5 and is rejecter under the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has been analyzed with regard to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above as well as in accordance with Hess further teaching on: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method (Claim 19: One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media embodying software that is operable when executed by a first computing system)
Claim 16 recites limitations similar to claim 2 and is rejecter under the same reasoning.
Claim 18 recites limitations similar to claim 4 and is rejecter under the same reasoning.
Claim 19 recites limitations similar to claim 5 and is rejecter under the same reasoning.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hess (U.S. Patent No 2020/0193643) in view of Singhal (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0057213) in view of Saxena (U.S. Patent No. 11080562).
Regarding claim 7, Hess in view of Singhal teaches the method of claim 1.
Hess in view of Singhal does not explicitly disclose wherein the spatial information about the second set of key points is further indicative of size and dimensions of components represented by the key points of the second set of key points.
Saxena is in the same field of art of image analysis. Further, Saxena teaches wherein the spatial information about the second set of key points is further indicative of size and dimensions of components represented by the key points of the second set of key points (Col 5 Lines 11-19: Typically, the features 106 correspond to features that are small relative to the size of the object, and multiple key points are located on a single object, making key points useful for size and orientation estimation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hess in view of Singhal by determining size of the object based on key points that is taught by Saxena; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references to accurately detect object (Saxena Background).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to claim 7 and is rejecter under the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 10, 13, 17, and 20 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.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, no prior art teaches wherein evaluating the distance of the object
from the vehicle includes matching the spatial information about one or more of the second set of key points with spatial information about one or more of the first set of key points; wherein the spatial information about the first set of key points is indicative of relative positions of the key points of the first set defined in distances and orientations.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, no prior art teaches wherein the object is a second vehicle, and the
method further comprises obtaining a make, a model, or a model year of the second vehicle from the non-volatile memory based on matching spatial information about the first set of key points with the spatial information about the second set of key points, wherein the spatial information of the second set of key points includes known relative positions specific to the identified make, model, or model year of the second vehicle.
Conclusion
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 DUSTIN BILODEAU whose telephone number is (571)272-1032. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/DUSTIN BILODEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights