DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
There are no Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) of record.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 11/22/2023.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings (Figure 1, 5 and 6) are objected to as they have been submitted in color (Gray Scaled). Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Restriction/Election of Species
Applicant's election without traverse of Species I, (Claims 1-7, 10-17, and 20) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged and is made FINAL.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 have been withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claims 1 and 11 are the independent Claims.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Election of Species” received on 11/17/2025.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 1-7, 10-17, and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “project a reference line to the 2D image such that a reference point of the reference line is matched with the reference lower point” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, thus indefinite. What does “to the 2D image” mean? The image is a digital file being used by a processor so what is this reference line in regards to an how is it “to” the 2D image? After looking into the specification for clarification and understanding, this limitation appears to be a translation issue and based on the specification, it appears that the reference line is “on or with” the 2D image from a drawn from a lower point to a higher point “on or with” the image. The Office is going to interpret this as such and suggests amending to claims to properly capture the intended claimed subject matter. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus . Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 11 is directed to an method (process). Therefore, Claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1 and 11 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: An apparatus for determining a height of an object outside of a vehicle,
the apparatus comprising: a camera configured to acquire a two-dimensional (2D) image; and a processor
configured to detect a target object corresponding to an obstacle from the 2D image,
determine a reference lower point from among pixels positioned at a lower portion of the target object,
project a reference line to the 2D image such that a reference point of the reference line is matched with the reference lower point,
wherein the reference line is preset,
and determine a height of the target object based on at least one threshold value for marking a preset distance, from the reference point, on the reference line.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “detecting, determining, and projecting” steps encompass a user to make gather information and determine height of an object. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “processor and camera”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “processor and camera” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the detecting, determining, and projecting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor and camera are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a controller. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of gathering data and determing heights of objects is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving data and using a processor, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a controller to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a processor or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the apparatus, the processor and camera amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data and dividing data, and determinizing errors, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of gathering the data and determining heights of objects are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claim 11 is not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-7 and 11-17 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1 and 11.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and further controlling a vehicle with the height information as stated in Claims 10 and 20. Limitations such as these suggested added to the independent claims above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hattori et al. (United States Patent 6,963,661).
With respect to Claim 1: Hattori discloses “An apparatus for determining a height of an object outside of a vehicle” [Hattori, Col 20 line 8 - Col 21 line 38 with Figures 17-18];
“the apparatus comprising: a camera configured to acquire a two-dimensional (2D) image” [Hattori, Col 11-lines 50 - Col 12 line 12 Figures 1-2];
“and a processor configured to detect a target object corresponding to an obstacle from the 2D image” [Hattori, Col 11-lines 50 - Col 12 line 12 Figures 1-2];
“determine a reference lower point from among pixels positioned at a lower portion of the target object” [Hattori, Col 20 line 8 - Col 21 line 38 with Figures 17-18 (the height computation unit 5 estimates the height of each region (or pixel) from the ground plane, from the obstacle region image detected by the difference detection unit 4. It is decided by this estimated height whether or not the obstacle region is a true obstacle)];
“project a reference line to the 2D image such that a reference point of the reference line is matched with the reference lower point wherein the reference line is preset” [Hattori, Col 20 line 8 - Col 21 line 38 with Figures 17-18(Let it be assumed that there is in the obstacle region image an obstacle region having an intensity difference larger than the standard value set by the user. Here: a point in the lower side of the obstacle region is designated by Ub; a point in the upper side is designated by Ut; and the distance (as taken in the longitudinal direction of the Drawing) between the point Ub and the point Ut is designated by dv)];
“and determine a height of the target object based on at least one threshold value for marking a preset distance, from the reference point, on the reference line” [Hattori, Col 20 line 8 - Col 22 line 15 with Figures 17-18 (the minimum of the height of the obstacle to be detected, and is set as follows when the height H of the image input unit 1 from the ground is 1.5 m and when an obstacle having a height of h=1 m or more is to be detected)].
With respect to Claim 11: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 11 can clearly perform on the apparatus of Claim 1. Therefore Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 2-7, 10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al. (United States Patent 6,963,661) in view of Velankar et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0032669).
With respect to Claim 2: While Hattori discloses “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: detect a structure as the target object based on determining that a the structure is classified into mutually different classes” [Hattori, Col 20 line 8 - Col 21 line 38 with Figures 17-18];
Hattori does not specifically state that sides of the object are identified, rather grouping pixels of like intensitiy and grouping for object identification.
Velankar, which is in the same field of invention of Hattori where 2D image is used to determine the height of objects for vehicle control teaches “wherein the processor is configured to: detect a lateral surface of a cubic structure as the target object based on determining that a lateral side and an upper portion of the cubic structure are classified into mutually different classes” [Velankar, ¶ 0023-0028, 0034, and 0054-0055 with Figures 2a-2b (More specifically, vertices of 3D box 220 are projected from their world coordinates to the image coordinates of the 2D bounding box 210, and constrained to fall along edges of the 2D box 210. Any vertices may be constrained to any appropriate edge of 2D bounding box 210. For example, in FIG. 2B, for an object oriented as shown, an upper left vertex 260 of 3D bounding box 220 (e.g., an upper passenger side corner of a front surface of box 220) may be constrained to lie at a point along the leftmost edge of 2D bounding box 210, an upper central vertex 250 of 3D bounding box 220 (e.g., an upper driver's side corner of a front surface of box 220) may be constrained to lie along the upper edge of 2D bounding box 210, and a lower right vertex 240 of 3D bounding box 220 (e.g., a lower driver's side corner of a back surface of box 220) may be constrained to lie along the rightmost edge of 2D bounding box 210)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Velankar into the invention of Hattori to not only include using 2D camera data for object height determination as Hattori discloses but to also convert the objects into a 3D world system with sides as taught by Velankar with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Velankar into Hattori to create a more robust system that better classify drivable and non-drivable paths “to assist applications such as autonomous navigation” [Velankar, ¶ 0003]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as object detection and avoidance based on detected obstacles and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 3: Hattori discloses “The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: classify the target object into groups having same horizontal coordinates on image coordinates of the 2D image” [Hattori, Col 4 lines 5-44 (as corresponding to an arbitrary region in the first image, assuming that the arbitrary region is caused by the plane, from the epipolar constraint to hold between the extracted region and the first and second images, to compare the intensities of the arbitrary region and the corresponding region, thereby to extract the region having a substantially different intensity as an obstacle region to obtain an obstacle region image from the extracted result; and a height computation unit for extracting a polygonal region, as composed of an intensity higher than a standard value, of the obstacle region image thereby to detect as a true obstacle region the polygonal region of a threshold or higher value of the ratio which is determined from the vertical size of the polygonal region in the obstacle region image and the size from the lower end of the polygonal region to the scan-line including the vanishing point for the lines on a plane)];
“and determine the reference lower point by selecting at least one of lowest coordinates of each of the groups” [Hattori, Col 4 lines 5-44 (as corresponding to an arbitrary region in the first image, assuming that the arbitrary region is caused by the plane, from the epipolar constraint to hold between the extracted region and the first and second images, to compare the intensities of the arbitrary region and the corresponding region, thereby to extract the region having a substantially different intensity as an obstacle region to obtain an obstacle region image from the extracted result; and a height computation unit for extracting a polygonal region, as composed of an intensity higher than a standard value, of the obstacle region image thereby to detect as a true obstacle region the polygonal region of a threshold or higher value of the ratio which is determined from the vertical size of the polygonal region in the obstacle region image and the size from the lower end of the polygonal region to the scan-line including the vanishing point for the lines on a plane)].
With respect to Claim 4: Hattori discloses “The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: transform world coordinates of the reference line into the image coordinates through camera calibration” [Hattori, Col 13 lines 35-50 and Col 20 line 8 - Col 21 line 38 with Figures 3 and 17-18 (It is assumed (FIG. 4) that the ground plane is changed from the standard plane Z=0 to the inclined plane Z=pY by the change in the inclination of the ground and the vibration of the own vehicle at the traveling time)];
“wherein the reference line is set in a vertical axis direction in a world coordinate system” [Hattori, Col 13 lines 35-50 and Col 20 line 8 - Col 21 line 38 with Figures 3 and 17-18 (It is assumed (FIG. 4) that the ground plane is changed from the standard plane Z=0 to the inclined plane Z=pY by the change in the inclination of the ground and the vibration of the own vehicle at the traveling time].
With respect to Claim 5: Hattori discloses “The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: compare a distance from the reference point to a comparison point at which the reference line corresponds to upper-most coordinates of each group with the threshold value” [Hattori, Col 4 lines 5-44 (as corresponding to an arbitrary region in the first image, assuming that the arbitrary region is caused by the plane, from the epipolar constraint to hold between the extracted region and the first and second images, to compare the intensities of the arbitrary region and the corresponding region, thereby to extract the region having a substantially different intensity as an obstacle region to obtain an obstacle region image from the extracted result; and a height computation unit for extracting a polygonal region, as composed of an intensity higher than a standard value, of the obstacle region image thereby to detect as a true obstacle region the polygonal region of a threshold or higher value of the ratio which is determined from the vertical size of the polygonal region in the obstacle region image and the size from the lower end of the polygonal region to the scan-line including the vanishing point for the lines on a plane)].
. With respect to Claim 6: While Hattori discloses “The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to: determine the height of the target object in response to determining that a vertical coordinate value of the comparison point is a vertical coordinate value of a first threshold value” [Hattori, Col 20 line 8 - Col 22 line 15 with Figures 17-18 (the minimum of the height of the obstacle to be detected, and is set as follows when the height H of the image input unit 1 from the ground is 1.5 m and when an obstacle having a height of h=1 m or more is to be detected) and (By warning the presence of the obstacle to the user, on the other hand, it is possible to avoid the event which may occur in the presence of the obstacle, as the user desires so)].
Hattori does not specifically state that the height is used to limit vehicle control, rather identify and warn a user.
Velankar, which is in the same field of invention of Hattori where 2D image is used to determine the height of objects for vehicle control teaches “wherein the processor is configured to: determine the height of the target object as a height for limiting movement of the vehicle” [Velankar, ¶ 0022-0028, 0034, and 0054-0055 with Figures 2a-2b (That is, vehicle 100 cannot drive into the footprints of either vehicle 150, 160. Vehicle 100 thus uses its calculated non-drivable spaces in navigation. In the example shown, vehicle 100 may calculate a route that does not cross into the right lane, to avoid the non-drivable space presented by vehicle 160. Similarly, if vehicle 100 intends to turn right at the intersection 170 shown, it may slow down or otherwise wait until vehicle 160 has passed the intersection 170, before entering the right lane)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Velankar into the invention of Hattori to not only include using 2D camera data for object height determination as Hattori discloses but to also convert the objects into a 3D world system with sides as taught by Velankar with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Velankar into Hattori to create a more robust system that better classify drivable and non-drivable paths “to assist applications such as autonomous navigation” [Velankar, ¶ 0003]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as object detection and avoidance based on detected obstacles and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 7: Hattori discloses “The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to: determine the target object as noise in response to determining that the vertical coordinate value of the comparison point is equal to or less than a vertical coordinate value of a second threshold value or is equal to or greater than a vertical coordinate value of a third threshold value.” [Hattori, Col 20 line 8 - Col 22 line 15 with Figures 17-18 (When the height of each obstacle detected on the image from the ground plane is computed by using Equation (8) and is smaller than a preset height, i.e., a threshold value ymin, this polygonal region detected is not the true obstacle region but is eliminated as a noise)].
. With respect to Claim 10: While Hattori discloses “The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: an autonomous driving controller configured to control the vehicle based on the height of the target object determined by the processor” [Hattori, Col 20 line 8 - Col 22 line 15 with Figures 17-18 (the minimum of the height of the obstacle to be detected, and is set as follows when the height H of the image input unit 1 from the ground is 1.5 m and when an obstacle having a height of h=1 m or more is to be detected) and (By warning the presence of the obstacle to the user, on the other hand, it is possible to avoid the event which may occur in the presence of the obstacle, as the user desires so)].
Hattori does not specifically state that the height is used to limit vehicle control, rather identify and warn a user.
Velankar, which is in the same field of invention of Hattori where 2D image is used to determine the height of objects for vehicle control teaches “further comprising: an autonomous driving controller configured to control driving of the vehicle based on the height of the target object determined by the processor” [Velankar, ¶ 0022-0028, 0034, and 0054-0055 with Figures 2a-2b (That is, vehicle 100 cannot drive into the footprints of either vehicle 150, 160. Vehicle 100 thus uses its calculated non-drivable spaces in navigation. In the example shown, vehicle 100 may calculate a route that does not cross into the right lane, to avoid the non-drivable space presented by vehicle 160. Similarly, if vehicle 100 intends to turn right at the intersection 170 shown, it may slow down or otherwise wait until vehicle 160 has passed the intersection 170, before entering the right lane)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Velankar into the invention of Hattori to not only include using 2D camera data for object height determination as Hattori discloses but to also convert the objects into a 3D world system with sides as taught by Velankar with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Velankar into Hattori to create a more robust system that better classify drivable and non-drivable paths “to assist applications such as autonomous navigation” [Velankar, ¶ 0003]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as object detection and avoidance based on detected obstacles and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claims 12-17 and 20: all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus in Claims 2-7 and 10. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 12-17 and 20 can clearly perform on the apparatus of Claims 2-7 and 10. Therefore Claims 12-17 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c