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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "… an image equalization to enhance the contrast between the lighted pixels and the dark pixels …" (emphasis added to accentuate insufficient antecedent basis).
The limitation was previously recited in claim 1 and therefore lacks clarity, since “image equalization” may be interpreted as a secondary image equalization technique or is the same image equalization feature stated in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as the following:
“… the image equalization to enhance the contrast between the lighted pixels and the dark pixels …”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processing unit in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szatmary et al., hereinafter referred to as Szatmary (US 2016/0378117 A1) in view of Dolgov (US 9,120,485 B1) in further view of Hall et al., hereinafter referred to as Hall (US 2017/0269197 A1).
As per claim 1, Szatmary discloses a method for detecting an object (Szatmary: Abstract), comprising:
defining a light pattern including dark and lighted groups of square pixels (Szatmary: Paras. [0089], [0091] [0110] disclose LED and other light sources project pattern 300 including dark and light pixel groups (e.g., similar to a QR code pattern));
projecting the light pattern (Szatmary: Paras. [0089], [0091] [0110] disclose LED and other light sources project pattern 300 including dark and light pixel groups (e.g., similar to a QR code pattern));
acquiring an image of the projected light pattern (Szatmary: Fig. 2B & Paras. [0081], [0084] disclose the image sensor acquiring an image of the projected light 300);
comparing the shape and position of some groups of square pixels in the acquired image with respect of the defined light pattern utilizing an image equalization to enhance the contrast between the lighted pixels and the dark pixels (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0011] & [0088] disclose utilizing contrast enhancement by increasing contrast of a first area compared to a second area associated with the background portion, wherein the first area and second area represent elements of alternating black and white [the lighted pixels and the dark pixels] and Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose the received image and/or a portion of the received image may be compared via processing component to the projected pattern to determine parameters (e.g., a ratio of dimension 336 to the dimension 346, a ratio of dimension 336 and/or 346 to the dimension 338, absolute values of the dimensions 336, 338, 346, values and/or ratios of diagonal dimensions of the shape of the reflected pattern 330, an area of the reflected pattern) of a reflected pattern to determine whether an expected pattern may be present within the image/sub-image using e.g. correlation-based analysis and/or block matching for the image patch or block of pixels. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations); and
using the comparison to infer features of an object (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose absence of the expected pattern may indicate a presence of an object, such as a wall within the sampling area. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations [features of an object] with respect to the floor or a non-rectangular shape (e.g., a trapezoid) of certain height, and width dimensions, indicating an absence of the expected pattern and thus, inferring detection of an object (e.g., wall).).
However, Szatmary does not explicitly disclose “… detecting an object in a road surface … projecting the light pattern on a road surface; either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, when the object is initially detected …”.
Further, Dolgov is in the same field of endeavor and teaches detecting an object in a road surface and projecting the light pattern on a road surface (Dolgov: Col. 8, ll. 31-39 & Col. 9 ll. 21-41 disclose projecting structured light on a road surface environment to detect an object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary and Dolgov before him or her, to modify the autonomous robot vehicle of Szatmary to include the detecting object and light pattern projection of a road surface feature as described in Dolgov. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve autonomous navigation and object detection by providing transitional trajectory logic and additional lighting configurations when travelling in pre-mapped environments.
However, Szatmary-Dolgov do not explicitly disclose “… either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, when the object is initially detected …”.
Further, Hall is in the same field of endeavor and teaches either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, when the object is initially detected (Hall: Para. [0069], [0071] disclose increasing the luminous intensity of the light pattern after detecting an object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary-Dolgov and Hall before him or her, to modify the lighting configuration of Szatmary-Dolgov to include the increasing luminous intensity feature as described in Hall. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reduced energy consumption and heat generation by providing techniques that enable greater control over light elements.
As per claim 10, Szatmary discloses a method for autonomous managing of a vehicle (Szatmary: Abstract), comprising:
performing detection of an object with the performing including defining a light pattern including dark and lighted groups of square pixels, projecting the light pattern (Szatmary: Paras. [0011] & [0088] disclose utilizing contrast enhancement by increasing contrast of a first area compared to a second area associated with the background portion, wherein the first area and second area represent elements of alternating black and white [the lighted pixels and the dark pixels].), and using the comparison to infer features of an object (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose the received image and/or a portion of the received image may be compared via processing component to the projected pattern to determine parameters (e.g., a ratio of dimension 336 to the dimension 346, a ratio of dimension 336 and/or 346 to the dimension 338, absolute values of the dimensions 336, 338, 346, values and/or ratios of diagonal dimensions of the shape of the reflected pattern 330, an area of the reflected pattern) of a reflected pattern to determine whether an expected pattern may be present within the image/sub-image using e.g. correlation-based analysis and/or block matching for the image patch or block of pixels. Absence of the expected pattern may indicate a presence of an object, such as a wall within the sampling area. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations [features of an object] with respect to the floor or a non-rectangular shape (e.g., a trapezoid) of certain height, and width dimensions, indicating an absence of the expected pattern and thus, inferring detection of an object (e.g., wall).);
However, Szatmary does not explicitly disclose “… projecting the light pattern on a road surface, either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, when the object is initially detected … using the obtained features of the object to decide a suitable vehicle maneuver; checking if the vehicle maneuver can be performed in secure conditions; and performing the maneuver.”.
Further, Dolgov is in the same field of endeavor and teaches projecting the light pattern on a road surface (Dolgov: Col. 8, ll. 31-39 & Col. 9 ll. 21-41 disclose projecting structured light on a road surface environment to detect an object.),
using the obtained features of the object to decide a suitable vehicle maneuver (Dolgov: Col. 5, ll. 29-38; Col. 8, ll. 31-39; Col. 12 ll. 44-50; Col. 13, ll. 5-20 disclose using the obtained features of the object to decide a suitable vehicle maneuver.);
checking if the vehicle maneuver can be performed in secure conditions (Dolgov: Col. 12 ll. 44-50; Col. 13, ll. 5-20 disclose considering other objects/vehicles before performing a vehicle maneuver according to an updated/new trajectory.); and
performing the maneuver (Dolgov: Col. 13, ll. 5-20 discloses the vehicle moving towards the new trajectory carefully/smoothly.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary and Dolgov before him or her, to modify the autonomous robot vehicle of Szatmary to include the suitable vehicle maneuver decision road surface feature as described in Dolgov. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve autonomous navigation and object detection by providing transitional trajectory logic and additional lighting configurations when travelling in pre-mapped environments.
However, Szatmary-Dolgov do not explicitly disclose “… either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, when the object is initially detected …”.
Further, Hall is in the same field of endeavor and teaches either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, when the object is initially detected (Hall: Para. [0069], [0071] disclose increasing the luminous intensity of the light pattern after detecting an object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary-Dolgov and Hall before him or her, to modify the lighting configuration of Szatmary-Dolgov to include the increasing luminous intensity feature as described in Hall. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reduced energy consumption and heat generation by providing techniques that enable greater control over light elements.
As per claim 2, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the comparison provides at least one disparity value, which reveals some features of the object (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose absence of the expected pattern may indicate a presence of an object, such as a wall within the sampling area. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations [features of an object].).
As per claim 3, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein some groups of square pixels contain specific information about the dimensions of the object (Szatmary: [0090]-[0091], [0215], [0218]-[0220] disclose portions of the image (block-based equal pixel dimensions or squared patches) may be evaluated with an object being present in a given image portion and the reflections reveal height differences between different objects).
As per claim 4, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the light groups are lighted in coloured light (Szatmary: [0090], [0102], [0106], [0215] disclose portions of the image (block-based equal pixel dimensions or squared patches) may be evaluated and assigned a probability associated with an object being present in a given image portion using a combination of different colors).
As per claim 5, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the light pattern is projected by a headlamp or by a reverse light (Dolgov: Fig 2; Col. 7, ll. 43-52; Col. 8, ll. 31-39 disclose wherein the light pattern is projected by a headlamp (206, 208).).
As per claim 7, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the features contain a position, a width and/or a height of the object (Szatmary: Paras. [0089], [0130]-[0131], [0213] disclose the pattern portion or subset reflected by an object may be used to determine the distance to the object [features containing position] and may comprise a non-rectangular shape (e.g., a trapezoid) of certain height, and widths [features containing width and/or the height of the object].).
As per claim 8, Szatmary-Dolgov-Hall disclose the method according to claim 1, further comprising defining a size and/or shape of the groups of square pixels as a function of a desired detection range (Szatmary: Paras. [0091], [0111], [0120], [0215] disclose defining the size and/or shape of the groups of patch square pixels based on controlling the projected light to be closer or further away from the autonomous robot [as a function of a desired detection range]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szatmary in view of Hall.
As per claim 11, Szatmary discloses an automotive lighting device (Szatmary: [0075] – autonomously operating robotic device 200 of FIG. 2A) comprising:
a plurality of solid-state light sources (LED, light bulb, laser, and/or other source), configured to project a light pattern (expected light pattern 300) including dark and lighted groups of square pixels (Szatmary: Paras. [0089], [0091] [0110] disclose LED and other light sources project pattern 300 including dark and light pixel groups (e.g., similar to a QR code pattern));
an image sensor (camera 252 includes an image sensor) configured to acquire an image of the projected light (Szatmary: Fig. 2B & Paras. [0081], [0084] disclose the image sensor acquiring an image of the projected light 300); and
a processing unit (processing component) configured to compare a shape and position of some groups of square pixels (block of pixels or patches of image) in the acquired image with respect of a defined light pattern (expected light pattern 300) utilizing an image equalization to enhance the contrast between the lighted pixels and the dark pixels (Szatmary: Paras. [0011] & [0088] disclose utilizing contrast enhancement by increasing contrast of a first area compared to a second area associated with the background portion, wherein the first area and second area represent elements of alternating black and white [the lighted pixels and the dark pixels].), and use the comparison to infer features of an object (Szatmary: Figs. 3A-3B, 9A & Paras. [0054], [0087]-[0091], [0097]-[0099], [0212]-[0215], [0235] disclose the received image and/or a portion of the received image may be compared via processing component to the projected pattern to determine parameters (e.g., a ratio of dimension 336 to the dimension 346, a ratio of dimension 336 and/or 346 to the dimension 338, absolute values of the dimensions 336, 338, 346, values and/or ratios of diagonal dimensions of the shape of the reflected pattern 330, an area of the reflected pattern) of a reflected pattern to determine whether an expected pattern may be present within the image/sub-image using e.g. correlation-based analysis and/or block matching for the image patch or block of pixels. Absence of the expected pattern may indicate a presence of an object, such as a wall within the sampling area. For example, the parameters may indicate orientation [position], skewness [shape] and vertical deviations [features of an object] with respect to the floor or a non-rectangular shape (e.g., a trapezoid) of certain height, and width dimensions, indicating an absence of the expected pattern and thus, inferring detection of an object (e.g., wall).).
However, Szatmary does not explicitly disclose “… either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, when the object is initially detected …”.
Further, Hall is in the same field of endeavor and teaches either, increasing luminous intensity of the light pattern, or changing the colours of at least some of the groups of square pixels, when the object is initially detected (Hall: Para. [0069], [0071] disclose increasing the luminous intensity of the light pattern after detecting an object.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Szatmary and Hall before him or her, to modify the lighting configuration of Szatmary to include the increasing luminous intensity feature as described in Hall. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve reduced energy consumption and heat generation by providing techniques that enable greater control over light elements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 provided that the rejection pertinent to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 05-06-2026
Prosecution Insights