DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The Amendment filed 18 February, 2026 (hereinafter “the Amendment’) has been entered and considered. Claims 1-8 have been amended. Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected. All modifications to the rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicants’ claim amendments; accordingly, this action is made final.
Response to Amendment
2. In view of the amendments to claims 1-8, the rejections below have been clarified to address the new claim language.
101 Claim Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
112(b) Rejections
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
112(f) Claim Interpretation
The 35 U.S.C. §112(f) interpretations are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Prior Art Rejections
3. On pages 8-9 of the Amendment, the Applicant contends that the prior art of record does not teach or disclose the newly amended features of the independent claims. The Applicant further contends that Suda does not set the erecting projection plane distance to the distance corresponding to that initially selected lookup table, but instead also relies on the large side lookup table so that the erecting projection plane distance corresponds to the recognized object distance, and the Applicant further contends that the amended claims recite deforming the projection surface based on the stabilization distance and further recite that the projection surface is not deformed based on one of the first distance and the second distance that is not the stabilization distance, where the Examiner understands this to mean that the Applicant asserts that Suda requires the second lookup table as well to perform the task. However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, the language does not require that the second large side lookup table be omitted or not used for the basis of deforming the projection surface. “wherein the projection surface is not deformed based on one of the first distance and the second distance that is not the stabilization distance” reads under the broadest reasonable interpretation that the processing need not operate until it gets close enough to an object to detect, for example, in parking assistance systems, the projected view provided to the driver is not deformed/warped until the vehicle comes within a close enough distance to the obstacle. Therefore, the projection surface is not deformed based on both the first and second distances that are not the stabilization distances. Furthermore, Suda discloses in P[0052]: “If the object distance is 0.5 meters or less, the right-side specific lookup table for which the distance of the erect projection surface is "0.5 meters" becomes the "processed lookup table," and if the object distance is "30 meters" or more, the right-side specific lookup table for which the distance of the erect projection surface is "30 meters" becomes the "processed lookup table."”, which discloses that the processed lookup table does not need to be the combination of multiple tables, and instead can be a single table with a change of name.
The Applicant asserts a similar argument for the rest of the independent and dependent claims. The rejections are updated below to address the newly added claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Examiner was unable to find support for “the projection surface is not deformed based on one of the first distance and the second distance that is not the stabilization distance.”, found in independent claims 1, 7, and 8, within the Specification provided. While negative limitations are not per se impermissible, they must have support in the originally filed specification other than absence of a positive limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(i).
The Examiner was unable to find support for “the hardware processor is further configured to convert the measurement distance into the second distance serving as the stabilization distance when the measurement distance is not larger than a second threshold that is larger than the first threshold and convert the measurement distance into the first distance serving as the stabilization distance when the measurement distance is larger than the second threshold.”, found in claim 2, within the Specification provided.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2019204393: Suda Ryohei et al., (herein after “Suda”).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, An image processing apparatus comprising: a hardware processor configured to (Suda, P[0026]: “the image processing device 1 includes, as its functional configuration, a captured image acquisitionunit 10, a distance detection unit 11, an image processing unit 12, and a display control unit 13. Each of the functionalblocks 10 to 13 can be configured using hardware, a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), or software.”):
when a measurement distance between a three-dimensional object around a moving object and the moving object is smaller than a previous measurement distance (Suda, P[0031]: “the distance detection unit 11 identifies one target object to be detected as the distance to the identified target object using a predetermined method, and detects the distance to the identified target object as the object distance. The predetermined method may be, for example, a method of targeting the object closest to the vehicle”), convert the measurement distance into a first distance when the measurement distance is not smaller than a first threshold, and convert the measurement distance into a second distance smaller than the first distance when the measurement distance is smaller than the first threshold, which serves as a stabilization distance (Suda, P[0032]: “The distance detection unit 11 properly acquires all the information necessary for distance detection (e.g., if the distance is detected using information related to the movement of the vehicle, that information). The method by which the distance detection unit 11 measures the distance to the target object is not limited to the method exemplified in this embodiment, and any method may be used. For example, the distance may be detected by analyzing images captured by both the rear camera and side cameras, by using the image capture results of a stereo camera installed on the vehicle, or by using a ranging radar (such as a laser radar or a millimeter-wave radar), and Suda, P[0044]: “the image processing unit 12 recognizes the object distance detected by the distance detection unit 11 at the timing when the composite image generation process is executed. Next, the image processing unit 12 identifies, from among the right-side specific lookup tables, a right-side specific lookup table in which the distance of the erect projection plane is smaller than the object distance and closest to the object distance. For example, if the object distance is "2.1 meters," the image processing unit 12 identifies a right-side specific lookup table in which the distance of the erect projection plane is "2 meters."”, where the distance taken from the table is the stabilization distance, where the second distance is smaller than the first distance.); and
deform a projection surface of a peripheral image of the moving object based on the stabilization distance, wherein the projection surface is not deformed based on one of the first distance and the second distance that is not the stabilization distance (Suda, P[0105]: “the image processing unit 12B processes the specific lookup table to generate a processed lookup table so that the shape of the road surface projection surface corresponds to the shape of the road surface detected by the road surface shape detection unit 20. Figure 16 (A) shows an example of a projection surface composed of an upright projection surface and a road surface projection surface in this case.”, and see P[0008]: “the shape of the surface of the target object facing the second camera is detected, and the second captured image is converted into a complementary image using a projection surface having a distance that reflects the distance to the target object and a shape that corresponds to the shape of the surface of the target object facing the second camera.”).
Claims 7 and 8 recite features nearly identical to those recited in claim 1. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1.
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, 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.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suda in view of “ParkSense® Rear Park Assist | How To | 2020 Jeep Compass” by Mopar.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, wherein when the measurement distance is larger than the previous measurement distance, the hardware processor is further configured to convert the measurement distance into the second distance serving as the stabilization distance when the measurement distance is not larger than a second threshold that is larger than the first threshold and convert the measurement distance into the first distance serving as the stabilization distance when the measurement distance is larger than the second threshold (Suda, P[0044]: “For example, if the object distance is "2.1 meters," the image processing unit 12 identifies a right-side specific lookup table in which the distance of the erect projection plane is "2 meters."”, where the thresholds are the separate values in the lookup table for distance values, and P[0045]: “For example, if the object distance is 2.1 meters, the image processing unit 12 identifies a right-side lookup table in which the distance of the erect projection surface is 3 meters.”
7. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suda in view of US 20180113200 A1: by Amit Steinberg et al., (herein after “Steinberg”).
Regarding claim 5, Suda does not explicitly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to: generate map information on a periphery of the moving object by using detection point position information in which a detection point corresponding to the three-dimensional object around the moving object is accumulated and self-position information on the moving object; and calculate information on a distance between the three- dimensional object around the moving object and the moving object as the measurement distance based on the map information.
However, Steinberg discloses generate map information on a periphery of the moving object by using detection point position information in which a detection point corresponding to the three-dimensional object around the moving object is accumulated and self-position information on the moving object in P[0539]: “A navigational state of the vehicle may also include a position of the host vehicle relative to three-dimensional maps, partial maps, 2-D maps, landmarks, or any combination of map and landmarks, etc. Maps may be pre-stored, received via a communication channel, or generated (e.g. by SLAM).”; and
Steinberg further discloses calculate information on a distance between the three- dimensional object around the moving object and the moving object as the measurement distance based on the map information in P[0004]: “A light detection and ranging system, (LIDAR a/k/a LADAR) is an example of technology that can work well in differing conditions, by measuring distances to objects by illuminating objects with light and measuring the reflected pulses with a sensor.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ryohei to utilize SLAM processing and mapping with LiDAR, as taught by Steinberg, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided the benefit of improving power, range, and accuracy of detection.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to:
project the peripheral image onto the projection surface (Suda, P[0105]: “the image processing unit 12B processes the specific lookup table to generate a processed lookup table so that the shape of the road surface projection surface corresponds to the shape of the road surface detected by the road surface shape detection unit 20. Figure 16 (A) shows an example of a projection surface composed of an upright projection surface and a road surface projection surface in this case.”, where Fig. 16 shows the projection of a vehicle onto the deformed surface.), execute visual simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) processing by using the peripheral image, and calculate the measurement distance (Steinberg utilizes LiDAR with SLAM for local measurements, P[0539]: “A navigational state of the vehicle may also include a position of the host vehicle relative to three-dimensional maps, partial maps, 2-D maps, landmarks, or any combination of map and landmarks, etc. Maps may be pre-stored, received via a communication channel, or generated (e.g. by SLAM).”).
Allowable Subject Matter
8.
Claims 3-4 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 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TY M BEATTY whose telephone number is (703) 756-5370. The examiner can normally
be reached Mon-Fri: 8AM-4PM EST..
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,
Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272 - 3838. 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.
/TY MITCHELL BEATTY/Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights