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 Representative contested the outstanding Written Description, Enablement and Best Mode Rejections. The outstanding Written Description, Enablement and Best Mode Rejections will be addressed together. Namely, the febrile contention by Applicant’s Representative that the disclosure discloses CNNs as a type of Neural Network, and thereby has adequate disclosure for Written Description, Enablement and Best Mode Rejections is rejected as false on face. That one type of general Neural Network is named in no way provides for how to use or configure the same. Thus one of skill in the art would have to develop the CNN. The description is so devoid of disclosure that even the input/output vectors of the CNN are not specified, nor is there any discussion of the layer/neuron configuration as is necessary to actually describe a functional CNN for an applied purpose. Neural Network disclosure is utterly lacking as anything but an alluded name, and therefore may not be claimed in any form.
Finally, the arguments beginning at page 13 of the instant Response mischaracterize the outstanding obviousness rejection. Namely, the primary Kang reference is cited for all recited features but for the physical illuminator/illumination. The secondary Potter reference is cited merely for the physical illuminator/illumination. The attempt in argumentation to bifurcate the references in partial application of features is rejected becuase that is not the outstanding rejection. The further attempt on page 14 to argue that amending a stereo camera system to include an illuminator is improper is rejected because it is common to apply a light source to a stereo imaging system for illumination, such that this is a transparently spurious argument. Still further, from the instant IDS of 12/4/2025 it is indubitably known to Applicant’s Representative that in the corresponding Chinese sister case, the CNIPA determined that the primary Kang reference alone could be cited as anticipatory. Thus the Kang reference discloses the recited features to which it was applied per the claims mapping below.
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Namely, there is no disclosure of the neural network type or configuration such as network structure, or how to configure the same in the context of the calculations such that one of skill in the art is wholly unable to even begin to recreate the so-called invention, if indeed there was one. Thus the application is utterly devoid of the required disclosure to the public.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Namely, the application is not enabling because there is no disclosure of the neural network type or configuration such as network structure, or how to configure the same in the context of the calculations such that one of skill in the art is wholly unable to even begin to recreate the so-called invention, if indeed there was one. Thus the application is utterly devoid of the required enablement such that a working system may be instantiated. At best, what is provided in the application is a desired outcome, without technical implementation details to arrive at the desired result.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the best mode contemplated by the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s) has not been disclosed.
Evidence of concealment of the best mode is based upon lack of any specification of the type or structure of neural network to be instantiated in implementation. Even if not reduced to practice, the inventor or applicant will have a set of neural networks or structures thereof that are amenable for application, or at the very least, a set of neural networks or configurations that are not amenable to application.
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, 3-6, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2020/0013176) in view of Potter (US 10,891,745).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses a method for determining depth information relating to image information by an artificial neural network (paragraph 0009, neural network used to derive depth information) in a vehicle, (in preamble, hence non-limiting , but see Potter) comprising the following steps: at least one first and one second receiving sensor, the first and second receiving sensors being spaced apart from one another; (shown Figure 1, stereo camera set) receiving reflected proportions of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the at least one emitter by the first and second receiving sensors and generating first image information by the first receiving sensor and second image information by the second receiving sensor on the basis of the received reflected proportions; (paragraph 009, first and second cameras of stereo camera receive images by reflection) comparing the first and second image information for determining at least one image area which is unequal[ly] ... in the first and second image information and which occurs by the parallax due to the spaced-apart arrangement of the receiving sensors; (paragraph 0032, disparity of images determined by parallax due to images from the two separate positions) evaluating geometric information of the at least one unequal[ly] ... image area and estimating depth information by the artificial neural network on the basis of a result of the evaluation of the geometric information of the at least one unequal[ly] ... image area. (paragraph 0045, neural network uses triangulation of parallax to determine depth)
Kang fails to disclose providing at least one emitter and... emitting electromagnetic radiation by the at least one emitter; resulting in unequally illuminated.
However, Potter teaches providing at least one emitter and... emitting electromagnetic radiation by the at least one emitter; (Figures 3/5, headlight located illumination of region) resulting in unequally illuminated. (column 2, lines 40-45, structure illumination will result in unequal illumination in parallel images)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the stereo imaging system of Kang may be instantiated in an applied stereo imaging system such as Potter before the effective filing date of the instant application because vehicle stereo imaging systems and stereo imaging systems applied to the same were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application as evinced by Potter. (column 3, lines 15-25)
Regarding independent claim 15, claim 15 is a system claim reciting device features corresponding to recited method features of claim 1, and is therefore rendered obvious by the combination of Kang and Potter for reasons similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kang discloses wherein the first and second receiving sensors are each a camera. (Figure 1, sensors are cameras)
Kang fails to disclose wherein the at least one emitter is at least one headlight emitting visible light in the wavelength range between 380nm and 800nm.
However, Potter teaches wherein the at least one emitter is at least one headlight emitting visible light in the wavelength range between 380nm and 800nm. (column 4, lines 20-30, fluorescent light is same visible light)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Kang discloses wherein the first and second receiving sensors form a stereo camera system. (paragraph 0004, Figure 1, is stereo system)
Regarding claim 5, Kang fails to disclose the recited; however, Potter teaches wherein the at least one emitter includes front headlights of the vehicle, (column 4, lines 10-30, emitter located in right/left car headlights) and in each case one receiving sensor is assigned to a front headlight in such a way that the straight line of sight between an object to be detected and the front headlight runs substantially parallel to the straight line of sight between an object to be detected and the receiving sensor assigned to the front headlight. (shown Figure 3 in conjunction with Figure 5, cameras located in headlights to receive light reflection)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Kang fails to disclose the recited; however, Potter teaches wherein the first and second receiving sensors are integrated in front headlights of the vehicle. (column 4, lines 10-20, stereo system integrated into car headlights)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Kang discloses wherein the artificial neural network determines depth information in image areas detected by the first and second receiving sensors on the basis of a triangulation between pixels in the first and second image information and the first and second receiving sensors. (paragraphs 0047/0050, disparity estimation, and thus triangulation therefore based on pixel granularity)
Regarding claim 11, Kang discloses wherein the at least one emitter emits IR radiation, radar signals or laser radiation. (paragraph 0003, active stereo has laser light emitter)
Regarding claim 12, Kang discloses wherein at least part of the receiving sensors are infrared cameras, radar receivers or receivers for laser radiation. (paragraph 0003, stereo camera receives laser light)
Regarding claim 14, Kang discloses wherein the sensor groups at least partially use electromagnetic radiation in different frequency bands. (paragraphs 0002/0003, sensor groups may be RGB or IR or laser light, of different bandwidths)
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Potter, in yet further view of Smolyanskiy (US 2019/0295282).
Regarding claim 13, Kang and Potter fail to identically disclose the recited; however, Smolyanskiy teaches wherein, for estimating depth information relating to image information representing areas laterally adjacent to the vehicle and/or behind the vehicle, more than one emitter and more than two receiving sensors are used to determine image information, a plurality of sensor groups being provided which each have at least one emitter and at least two receiving sensors, and the image information of the respective sensor groups being combined to form overall image information. (Figure 5B, surround cameras around vehicle image around vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the stereo imaging system of Kang may be instantiated in an applied stereo imaging system such as Smolyanskiy before the effective filing date of the instant application because vehicle imaging systems and imaging systems applied to the same were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application as evinced by Smolyanskiy. (Figure 5B)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Suresh (US 2020/0050202) implicates neural networks for stereo depth recovery.
Schamp (US 2015/0288948) implicates stereo depth recovery.
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 CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
March 14, 2026