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 arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 15 and 20 (and their respective dependent claims) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, With respect to independent claims Applicant argues that “Nobayashi does not disclose or suggest, inter alia, "determining a first length of a captured object of a real object included in a first image frame captured by a single camera” (please see Remarks, page 11, second last paragraph).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Nobayashi discloses in paragraph 61, “The object information generation unit 320 includes a recognition processing unit 321 that detects an object included in an acquired image and generates external information indicating information regarding the object based on the image data. The external information is information indicating a position, a size such as a width and a height and a region of the detected object in the image” and further discloses in paragraph 125 “the recognition processing unit 321 determines whether each of the objects detected in step S702 is a new object of which an identification number has not been registered, allocates a new identification number to external information indicating the type and the region of an object determined as a new object, and then registers the external information”. Hence from the above passages it is clear that Nobayashi not only determine the size/length of the registered objects but also for the objects which are not registered and based on the object captured in the acquired image. Nobayashi further discloses in paragraph 143 that images are captured by a monocular camera. Therefore Nobayashi discloses the argued limitation as presented by the Applicant. Examiner suggests Applicant to further elaborate on how the length and/or distance are calculated rather than merely claiming object length and distance estimation, if different from the cited art to overcome the cited references.
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) 1-3, 9, 13-16, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobayashi (US PGPUB 2022/0309694 A1) and further in view of Nash (US PGPUB 2018/0184070 A1).
As per claim 1, Nobayashi discloses a processor-implemented method (Nobayashi, Fig. 1:100) comprising:
determining a first length of a captured object of a real object included in a first image frame captured by a single camera (Nobayashi, paragraphs 61, 125, 209, 230, and 243);
Although Nobayashi discloses distance calculation based on plurality of images (please see paragraphs 240, 243, and 297-298), however Nobayashi does not explicitly disclose determining a second length of the real object based on the first image frame and a second image frame including the captured object; and
estimating a target distance between an apparatus and the real object based on a ratio between the first length and the second length.
Nash discloses determining a second length of the real object based on the first image frame and a second image frame including the captured object (Nash, Fig. 6:612, and Abstract of the Invention, discloses measuring a first dimension of the object using the first image and a second dimension of the object using the second image); and
estimating a target distance between an apparatus and the real object based on a ratio between the first length and the second length (Nash, Fig. 6:614, and Abstract of the Invention, and paragraphs 40 and 52, discloses By measuring a first dimension of the object using the first image and a second dimension of the object using the second image, a depth of the object may be determined based upon a ratio of the first and second dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nobayashi teachings by implementing a depth measurement circuitry to the system, as taught by Nash.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system to accurately measure a dimension of objects (paragraph 24), as taught by Nash.
As per claim 2, Nobayashi in view of Nash further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second length is a physical length of the real object (Nash, paragraphs 44-46), and
wherein the determining of the second length comprises: determining a size of the real object from among standardized sizes of the real object (Nobayashi, paragraphs 117, 179, 230, and 253); and
determining the second length using the determined size (Nobayashi, paragraphs 117, 230, and 253-254).
As per claim 3, Nobayashi in view of Nash further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the determining of the size of the real object comprises determining either one or both of a length and a width corresponding to the captured object (Nash, paragraphs 44-46).
As per claim 9, Nobayashi in view of Nash further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the first length comprises determining the first length based on a bounding box for detecting the captured object (Nobayashi, Fig. 20, shows bounding box of traffic sign).
As per claim 13, Nobayashi in view of Nash further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising correcting a position of the apparatus by mapping the target distance to map information (Nobayashi, paragraphs 188, 237 and 255-256).
As per claim 14, Nobayashi in view of Nash discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1 (Nobayashi, paragraph 305).
As per claim 15, Nobayashi discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (Nobayashi, Fig. 1:130) configured to:
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 16, please see the analysis of claim 2.
As per claim 20, Nobayashi discloses a vehicle (Nobayashi, Fig. 1:100, and paragraph 42) comprising:
a single camera (Nobayashi, Fig. 17:1702, and paragraph 243) configured to capture an image frame including a fixed object (Nobayashi, Fig. 20, and paragraph 242, discloses traffic sign); and
one or more processors (Nobayashi, Fig. 1:130) configured to:
determine a first length of the fixed object included in the image frame (Nobayashi, paragraphs 61, 125, 209, 230, and 243); and
correct a position of the vehicle by mapping the target distance to map information (Nobayashi, paragraphs 188, 237, and 255-256, discloses distance correction unit 1704 acquires a corrected distance value Dc by correcting a distance value measured by the distance image generation unit 1712, based on a distance value calculated by the scaling ranging unit 1703).
Although Nobayashi discloses distance calculation based on plurality of images (please see paragraphs 240, 243, and 297-298), however Nobayashi does not explicitly disclose determine a second length of a real (fixed) object corresponding to the (fixed) object based on the image frame and a subsequent image frame including the (fixed) object; estimate a target distance between the vehicle and the real (fixed) object based on a ratio between the first length and the second length.
Nash discloses determine a second length of a real (fixed) object corresponding to the (fixed) object based on the image frame and a subsequent image frame including the (fixed) object (Nash, Fig. 6:612, and Abstract of the Invention, discloses measuring a first dimension of the object using the first image and a second dimension of the object using the second image); and
estimate a target distance between the vehicle and the real (fixed) object based on a ratio between the first length and the second length (Nash, Fig. 6:614, and Abstract of the Invention, and paragraphs 40 and 52, discloses By measuring a first dimension of the object using the first image and a second dimension of the object using the second image, a depth of the object may be determined based upon a ratio of the first and second dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nobayashi teachings by implementing a depth measurement circuitry to the system, as taught by Nash.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system to accurately measure a dimension of objects (paragraph 24), as taught by Nash.
Claim(s) 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobayashi (US PGPUB 2022/0309694 A1) and further in view of Nash (US PGPUB 2018/0184070 A1) and further in view of Nozawa (JP H1138139 A, English translation of the JP is attached herewith and used for citation).
As per claim 4, Nobayashi in view of Nash further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the determining of the size of the real object comprises Nobayashi in view of Nash does not explicitly disclose determining the size of the real object based on speed information of the apparatus.
Nozawa discloses determining the size of the real object based on speed information of the apparatus (Nozawa, paragraph 26, discloses This forward obstacle recognition processing corresponds to the object recognition means of the present invention, and the recognition type of the forward object, the object width W, the center position XY coordinates of the object, and the relative speed Vr are obtained based on the own vehicle speed Vn).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nobayashi in view of Nash teachings by implementing an object detection technique to the system, as taught by Nozawa.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for maintaining a
proper inter-vehicle distance between the preceding vehicle and the own vehicle (paragraph 1), as taught by Nozawa.
Claim(s) 10-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobayashi (US PGPUB 2022/0309694 A1) and further in view of Nash (US PGPUB 2018/0184070 A1) and further in view of Rosenblum (US PGPUB 2022/0333932 A1).
As per claim 10, Nobayashi in view of Nash further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the captured object includes a road sign (Nobayashi, Fig. 20, shows traffic/road sign), and Although Nobayashi discloses a road sign, however does not explicitly disclose (the road sign) includes any one or any combination of any two or more of a speed sign, a distance sign, and a milestone.
Rosenblum discloses (the road sign) includes any one or any combination of any two or more of a speed sign, a distance sign, and a milestone (Rosenblum, paragraphs 210, and 243).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nobayashi in view of Nash teachings by detecting road signs, as taught by Rosenblum.
The motivation would be to improve safety conditions (paragraph 179), as taught by Rosenblum.
As per claim 11, Nobayashi in view of Nash further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising Although Nobayashi in view of Nash discloses correcting the target distance using speed information of the apparatus (Nobayashi, paragraphs 255-256). However, Nobayashi in view of Nash does not explicitly disclose (correcting the target distance using speed information of the apparatus) and a Kalman filter.
Rosenblum discloses (correcting the target distance using speed information of the apparatus) and a Kalman filter (Rosenblum, paragraphs 171 and 334, discloses Kalman filter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nobayashi in view of Nash teachings by implementing a kalman filter to the system, as taught by Rosenblum.
The motivation would be to improve safety conditions (paragraph 179), as taught by Rosenblum.
Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobayashi (US PGPUB 2022/0309694 A1) and further in view of Nash (US PGPUB 2018/0184070 A1) and further in view of Kwon (US PGPUB 2020/0218979 A1).
As per claim 12, Nobayashi in view of Nash further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the Nobayashi in view of Nash does not explicitly disclose single camera comprises a pinhole camera.
Kwon discloses single camera comprises a pinhole camera (Kwon, paragraph 136, discloses pinhole camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nobayashi in view of Nash teachings by implementing a pinhole camera to the system, as taught by Kwon.
The motivation would be to accurately and robustly predict distances to objects (paragraph 7), as taught by Kwon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, and 17-19, 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.
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 SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights