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 .
Status of the claims
This office action is made in response to applicant’s arguments filed on 12/29/2025, wherein claims 1-4, 8-9, and 11 have been amended, no claims have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 12/29/2025, with respect to 112(b) rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant contends that Lee fails to disclose or suggest (i) using “ceiling lines” as recited in the claims, and (ii) identifying multiple candidate lines, calculating scores for the candidate lines, and selecting a best line from the candidates. Applicant further asserts that Lee is limited to painted roadway lines and does not disclose a scoring-based selection process.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments. As relied upon in the most recent Office Action, Lee expressly teaches detecting multiple line candidates from an image and selecting a line based on calculated scores. For example, Lee discloses converting an image into a top-view representation and calculating fitting scores for lines included in the image with respect to a reference line (see, e.g., Fig. 6). Lee further discloses generating candidate fitting scores by evaluating matching pixels between candidate lines and a moved reference line (see, e.g., Fig. 7), which corresponds to scoring a plurality of candidate lines. Moreover, Lee teaches determining at least one fitting score corresponding to each line based on a threshold and detecting a corresponding line based on the fitting score (see, e.g., Fig. 9). Additionally, Fig. 10 illustrates the overall process in which lines are evaluated using fitting scores and a line is ultimately detected/selected based on those scores. Collectively, these disclosures teach or at least suggest evaluating multiple candidate lines, assigning scores, and selecting a line based on those scores, as recited in the claims.
Applicant’s argument that Lee is limited to painted roadway lines is not persuasive, because Lee’s disclosure is directed broadly to image-based detection and evaluation of line features for vehicle navigation, where the lines are extracted from image data and processed using scoring techniques. The claims do not recite structural limitations that distinguish the claimed “lines” from the line features disclosed in Lee. Accordingly, the alleged distinction amounts to a difference in intended use or environment, which does not render the claimed subject matter patentably distinct.
To the extent Lee does not explicitly disclose “ceiling lines”, Bell teaches extracting line features from overhead structures and using such features for navigation ([0004]-[0005]; [0010]). It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Lee reference and include features from the Bell reference with a reasonable expectation of success, thereby improving robustness and accuracy of feature detection. Such a combination represents the application of a known technique to a known analogous environment to yield predictable results.
Accordingly, the combination of Lee and Bell teaches or suggests all limitations of the rejected claims, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US-20190251373-A1) in view of Bell (US-20160011595-A1).
Regarding claim 1, LEE discloses a system for drift correction of an autonomous vehicle using features ([0006]), the system comprising:
a computer processor; a digital memory accessible by the computer processor; a camera configured to be mounted on the autonomous vehicle, the camera being directed to capture images of the features to image one or more candidate lines ([0023]-[0024]; [0051]); and
computer-executable instructions implementing a heuristic algorithm stored in the digital memory, wherein when the computer processor executes the computer-executable instructions the computer processor: identifies the one or more candidate lines; calculates a score for each of the candidate lines, and based on the calculated scores selects a best line with the highest score; calculates change over time in the lateral position in the captured images of the selected best line to determine if the autonomous vehicle is drifting from a course parallel to the best line ([0014]; [0016]-[0025]; [0101]; [0102]; [00138]-[00140]; [0170]; [0176]-[0179]);
if the autonomous vehicle is determined to be drifting laterally from the course parallel to the best line, then calculates and transmits a course correction instruction to the autonomous vehicle's steering system to reduce the drift; and if the score of the selected best line in subsequent images is less than a predefined threshold or the selected best line disappears from the view of the camera in the subsequent images, then calculates scores for each of a new set of candidate lines, and based on the calculated scores selects a new best line ([0089]-[0091]; [0150]-[0151]; Fig. 10).
However, LEE does not explicitly state camera being directed overhead to capture images of the overhead features to image one or more candidate lines detect ceiling lines using overhead features, wherein the candidate lines are ceiling lines.
On the other hand, Bell teaches camera being directed overhead to capture images of the overhead features to image one or more candidate lines detect ceiling lines using overhead features, wherein the candidate lines are ceiling lines ([0029]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the LEE reference with teachings of the BELL reference, with a reasonable expectation of success. Substituting the ground ceiling lines with the overhead lines provide stable, visually detectable linear features suitable for navigation in indoor environments, thereby improving robustness and accuracy of feature detection.
Regarding claim 7, LEE discloses a method of drift correction of an autonomous vehicle using overhead features performed by a computer processor, the method comprising: providing a camera mounted onboard the autonomous vehicle, and directing the camera to capture images of the features to image one or more candidate lines; and the computer processor executing a heuristic algorithm causing the computer processor to: identify the one or more candidate lines; calculate scores for each of the candidate lines, and based on the calculated scores select a best line; utilize the selected best line to determine if the autonomous vehicle is drifting from a desired course, and if so, then calculate and implement a course correction instruction to the autonomous vehicle's steering system to reduce the drift; and if the selected best line is no longer suitable or disappears from the view of the camera, then re-calculate scores for each of a new set of candidate lines, and based on the calculated scores select a new best line ([0014]; [0016]-[0025]; [0089]-[0091]; [0101]; [0102]; [00138]-[00140]; [0150]-[0151]; [0170]; [0176]-[0179]; Fig. 10).
However, LEE does not explicitly state camera being directed overhead to capture images of the overhead features to image one or more candidate lines detect ceiling lines using overhead features, wherein the candidate lines are ceiling lines.
On the other hand, Bell teaches camera being directed overhead to capture images of the overhead features to image one or more candidate lines detect ceiling lines using overhead features, wherein the candidate lines are ceiling lines ([0029]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the LEE reference with teachings of the BELL reference, with a reasonable expectation of success. Substituting the ground ceiling lines with the overhead lines provide stable, visually detectable linear features suitable for navigation in indoor environments.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, LEE discloses the instruction to the autonomous vehicle's steering system is calculated to cause the autonomous vehicle to alter the vehicle's course to be substantially parallel to the best line, and reduce the drift to zero ([0089]-[0091]; [0101]; [0150]-[0151]; [0156]; [0179]-[0180]; Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, LEE discloses the new best line is selected to be the line in the new set of candidate lines with the highest score ([0014]; [0016]-[0025]; [0101]; [0102]; [00138]-[00140]; [0170]; [0176]-[0179]).
However, LEE does not explicitly state the candidate lines are ceiling lines.
On the other hand, Bell teaches the candidate lines are ceiling lines ([0029]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the LEE reference with teachings of the BELL reference, with a reasonable expectation of success. Substituting the ground ceiling lines with the overhead lines provide stable, visually detectable linear features suitable for navigation in indoor environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, and 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (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 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.
/S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights