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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, and 13-16 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
1. Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 04/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. The applicant argues that the amended claim “wherein the damage distance is a measure of distance between a location of the bounding box and the vehicle” and that the bounding box is not a location that can merely be tracked. This is conflicting with the amendment recited as its clearly mentioning a “location” of the bounding box. The amendment is also not very clear, as “location of the bounding box” could be directed to the closest edge of the bounding box, a center of the bounding box, a corner of the bounding box, any location within the bounding box, etc. The claims recite that the bounding box is used to identify the road surface damage, the degree of damage, and the damage distance. Utilizing BRI, the damage distance can be interpreted as the depression location, as this is where the road surface is damaged, and is within the bounding box, which would be interrupted as a location of the bounding box, as the depression location is within the bounding box. The bounding box is used to determine a pothole/road crack, categorize the pothole/road crack, and then this information is used to track the depression location from the vehicle. This can be seen in Fig. 3, which discloses that an image is captured, the candidate is extracted, the depth and intensity of the pothole detected and classified, and then the detected pothole/road crack is tracked. The applicant also argues that the bounding box is not used to “track” the detected pothole/road crack. Examiner merely only briefly mentioned what Kundu discloses, and is not claiming that the bounding box is “tracking” a pothole/road crack. The bounding box is used to determine damage, degree of damage, and a location of the damage. The location of the damage is what is being utilized by the vehicle. Thus, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury does teach the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. 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, 4-7, 9-10, and 13-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “a location of the bounding box” in claim 1 is a term in which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “a location of the bounding box” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner is unsure if there is a specific coordinate for a specific corner, if the location of the bounding box is the center point of the bounding box, any location within the bounding box, or if it means the closest edge or boundary of the bounding box. The Examiner interprets these terms to be any location within the bounding box.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 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 non-obviousness.
5. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu (US 20200250984) in view of RoyChowdhury (US 20220044034).
Regarding Claim 1, Kundu discloses An autonomous driving control method for a vehicle, comprising: (Kundu, see at least [Abstract] wherein a vision sensor is used to improve safety for advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous driving)
obtaining a road surface image from a sensor of the vehicle; (Kundu, see at least [0047] wherein the camera system is mounted in the vehicle, and the camera field of view captures the front road.)
detecting road surface damage from the road surface image using an image detection algorithm, (Kundu, see at least [0047] “the camera system captures images at 301. Then, disparity images 302-2 and greyscale images 302-1 are calculated from the images taken from mono-camera or multiple cameras. Then the region of interest (ROI) is detected, which is a road surface which may contains depressions such as potholes, road cracks and/or obstacles such as vehicles or traffic poles, and so on.. In the detection phase 320, using depth classifier 305-1 and intensity classifiers 305-2, depressions are detected from extracted candidates.”)
the detecting comprising in response to detecting the road surface damage in the road surface image, identifying the detected road surface damage with a bounding box in the road surface image; (Kundu, see at least Fig. 15A in which shows an image with a bounding box around the road surface damage)
PNG
media_image1.png
244
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
determining a damage degree of the detected road surface damage and a damage distance of the road surface damage from the vehicle, wherein the damage distance is a measure of distance between a location of the bounding box and the vehicles, (Kundu, see at least [0134] “depressions can be classified based on depression depth (too deep, intermediate, shallow or other in accordance with the desired implementation) and/or depression size (e.g., big, medium, small, or other in accordance with the desired implementation),” Also see [0079] wherein the candidate is within the bounding box, and the candidate’s distance from the vehicle is known. The depth map is a pixel map, where each pixel contains the depth/distance information of the pothole. The pixels corresponding to the damage of the road include the depth/distance information of the damage (pothole) to the camera. Also see [0086] in which the extracted pothole candidates 1600 and the depth maps of the candidate pixels are concerted to the ground plane (real world coordinate system). Also see [0126] wherein disclosed is when the frames and corresponding dimension information are used to track the location of the candidate area. Also see paragraphs 57, 73, 83, 102. Fig. 7.)
wherein determining the damage distance of the road surface damage from the vehicle further comprises: converting, using a conversion algorithm, pixel positions of the boundary box of the road surface damage under a coordinate system of the sensor to pixel positions under an ego vehicle coordinate system; (Kundu, see at least [0086] in which the extracted pothole candidates 1600 and the depth maps of the candidate pixels are concerted to the ground plane (real world coordinate system). The road surface estimation is conducted, and only the extracted candidate region and neighboring regions are used (boundary box, see Fig. 18).)
and determining the damage distance of the road surface damage from the vehicle based on the pixel positions of the bounding box of the road surface damage under the ego vehicle coordinate system in order to determine the measure of the distance between the location of the bounding box and the vehicle; (Kundu, see at least [0079] wherein the bounding box around the pothole region, and a depth map is calculated based on imaging. The depth map is a pixel map, where each pixel contains the depth/distance information of the pothole. The pixels corresponding to the damage of the road include the depth/distance information of the damage (pothole) to the camera. Also see [0086] in which the extracted pothole candidates 1600 and the depth maps of the candidate pixels are concerted to the ground plane (real world coordinate system). Also see [0126] wherein disclosed is when the frames and corresponding dimension information are used to track the location of the candidate area. Also see paragraphs 57, 73, 83, 102.)
and automatically performing an autonomous driving maneuver in response to the adjusted autonomous driving strategy, the autonomous driving maneuver comprising at least one of automatically changing a lane of the vehicle, decelerating the vehicle, or stopping the vehicle. (Kundu, see at least [0134] wherein the vehicle controller can control the speed, suspension or steering of the vehicle accordingly.)
Kundu does not explicitly disclose and adjusting an autonomous driving strategy for the vehicle based on the damage degree and the damage distance.
adjusting an autonomous driving strategy for the vehicle based on the damage degree and the damage distance; (RoyChowdhury, see at least Fig. 5A in which a pothole is detected in 20 meters and also see at least [0082] wherein the vehicle safety system may indicate an automated solution or mitigation for the upcoming road damage, such as a message indicating that the vehicle slow down.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kundu to include the technique of detecting a degree of damage and distance between the vehicle and the upcoming damage in order to adjust a vehicle’s driving strategy as taught by RoyChowdhury with reasonable expectation that this would allow for an improvement in safety navigating a vehicle as it comes across damaged road as the vehicle is traveling.
Regarding Claim 4, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury discloses The autonomous driving control method of claim 1, wherein determining the damage degree of the detected road surface damage further comprises: (see rejection above)
classifying the detected road surface damage and determining a category confidence level; and determining the damage degree based on the determined category and the category confidence level. (Kundu, see at least [0134-0135] “depressions can be classified based on depression depth (too deep, intermediate, shallow or other in accordance with the desired implementation) and/or depression size (e.g., big, medium, small, or other in accordance with the desired implementation),” Also see Fig. 33)
Regarding Claim 5, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury discloses The autonomous driving control method of claim 4, wherein the category of the road surface damage comprises: (see rejection above)
a lateral crack, wherein a longitudinal crack, a pothole, (Kundu, see at least [0113], wherein potholes, vertical and horizontal cracks can be detected)
Kundu does not explicitly disclose a chap, a subsidence, and a fracture.
However, RoyChowdhury discloses a chap, a subsidence, and a fracture. (, see at least [0021] “regions correspond to actual instances of road damage, the second network is further applied to classify the upcoming road damage, for example, as potholes, cracks, alligator cracks, etc” and [0060] wherein locations of individual cracks, asphalt pieces, small cracks, and more can be determined.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kundu to include the technique of detecting different types of road damage such as small cracks and alligator cracks as taught by RoyChowdhury with reasonable expectation that this would allow for an improvement in categorizing road surface damages, and therefore improve safety navigating a vehicle as it comes across damaged road as the vehicle is traveling.
Regarding Claim 6, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury discloses The autonomous driving control method of claim 5 wherein: (see rejection above)
in the case that the category of the road surface damage is a lateral crack or a longitudinal crack and the category confidence level is greater than a first threshold, the road surface degree of the road surface damage is level 0; in the case that the category of the road surface damage is a pothole and the category confidence level is greater than a second threshold, the road surface degree of the road surface damage is level 1; or in the case that the category of the road surface damage is a chap, a subsidence or a fracture and the category confidence level is greater than a third threshold value, the road surface degree of the road surface damage is level 2. (Kundu, see at least [0109] wherein the features of the image are compared with specific threshold values (which are previously calculated) and if it meets threshold conditions, the road surface damage is classified as a pothole)
Regarding Claim 7, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury discloses The autonomous driving control method of claim 1, (see rejection above)
wherein the first threshold is 60% to 90%, the second threshold is 60% to 90%, and the third threshold is 60% to 90%. (Kundu, see at least [0083] “Subsequently, each of these features are compared with a specific threshold (e.g., calculated using previously analyzed data by statistical analysis). Based on the specified threshold conditions, intensity classifier results will be used along with depth classifier results.” ** features are compared to specific threshold. A threshold percentage)
As per claim 9, the claim is directed towards a driving control system for a vehicle that recites similar limitations performed by the driving control method of claim 1. The cited portions of Kundu and RoyChowdhury used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Regarding Claim 10, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury discloses The autonomous driving control system of claim 9, (see rejection above)
wherein the sensor is further configured to: correct the captured the road surface image virtually to compensate for bumps or road gradient changes. (Kundu, see at least [0131] wherein a correction factor is applied to the estimated depth of area 3206 to update characteristics of the depression based on images received in real time.)
Regarding Claim 13, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury discloses A vehicle comprising an autonomous driving control system of claim 9. (Kundu, see at least [Abstract] wherein the a vision sensor is used to improve safety for advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous driving)
Regarding Claim 14, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury discloses The vehicle of claim 13, (see rejection above) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to adjust the autonomous driving strategy for the vehicle based on a type, user setting and/or a current speed of the vehicle. (Kundu, see at least [0135] wherein the lane used can be adjusted based on the type of depression.)
Regarding Claim 15, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury discloses The vehicle of claim 13, wherein the autonomous driving is further configured to (see rejection above)
issue an alert for the road surface damage to a user of the vehicle in response to detecting the road surface damage.
However, RoyChowdhury discloses issue an alert for the road surface damage to a user of the vehicle in response to detecting the road surface damage. (RoyChowdhury, see at least [0055] wherein the vehicle safety system may adequately alert the vehicle’s driver to avoid the locations of the road damage.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kundu to include the technique of issuing an alert for the road surface damage to a user of the vehicle as taught by RoyChowdhury with reasonable expectation that this would allow for an improvement in safety navigating a vehicle as it comes across damaged road as the vehicle is traveling.
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kundu (US 20200250984) in view of RoyChowdhury (US 20220044034) in further view of Tong (US 20200326179).
Regarding Claim 16, Kundu in view of RoyChowdhury discloses The autonomous control method of claim 1 (see rejection above)
wherein determining the damage distance includes determining the damage distance based on pixel positions of a closest boundary of the bounding box of the road surface damage
However, Tong discloses issue an alert for the road surface damage to a user of the vehicle in response to detecting the road surface damage. (Tong, see at least [0036] the distance measurement point is determined in the image, so as to be used for measuring the distance between the target object and the current object. The distance measurement point may be determined at a fixed position on the bottom edge of the detection bounding box, for example, a center point of the bottom edge of the detection bounding box is determined as the distance measurement point, and then the distance measurement point may be used for determining the distance between the target object and the current object.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kundu to include the technique of using the edge of a bounding box to determine distance from the target object to the current object as taught by Tong with reasonable expectation that this would allow for an improvement in safety navigating a vehicle as it comes across damaged road as the vehicle is traveling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights