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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0151993, filed on 11/6/2023.
Invocation of 35 USC § 112(f)
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: a controller configured to detect, predict, recognize, extract, analyze in claim 1; a controller configured to calculate, analyze in claim 2-9; a controller configured to allocate in claim 10.
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 § 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites: “learn an operation for recognizing the same object; and recognize the object by reflecting learning data in inputting a next image from the camera” in which the same object and the object are lack of antecedent basis.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0289239 A1, Shenfeld et al. (hereinafter Shenfeld).
As to claim 1, Shenfeld discloses an apparatus for controlling a vehicle, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor including at least one camera to obtain information about objects positioned around the vehicle (Figs 2A-2B, 0031, 0035, receiving from a camera first and second images representing environment around the vehicle; pars 0004-0006, 0009); and
a controller configured to detect at least one object image from an image obtained from the camera (Figs 1, 5C-5D, 26A, detect road markings, traffic light, land mark etc.; pars 0005-0008, 0011-0012),
predict a position of each object on the image currently obtained, based on information about objects recognized from an image previously obtained (pars 0182-0183, 0189, 0346, predict and estimate a position based on captured image frames and information stored in a database),
recognize an object by analyzing correlation between two objects based on an object image detected at the predicted position and an object image previously recognized (Fig 5B; pars 0005-0008, 0011-0012, 0215, 0219, 0221-0224), extract a first image, which corresponds to a front surface or a rear surface, of the object image (Figs 6, 47; pars 0017-0020, 0123, 0148, 0160, obtaining images corresponding a front and a rear of the vehicle),
extract a second image, which corresponds to a side surface (Fig 6; pars 0121-0122, 0148, obtaining images to the sides of vehicle), and
analyze the correlation between the two objects by comparing a feature value of the first image and a feature value of the second image, with a feature value of a third image corresponding to the front surface or the rear surface and a feature value of a fourth image, respectively, wherein the third image and the fourth image are extracted from the object image previously recognized (Fig 32; pars 0007-0008, 0011-0012, 0015, 00427-00428).
Although Shenfeld discloses above functions and features in more than one embodiment, consider Shenfeld’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Shenfeld’s teachings together to provide a vehicle navigation system with predictable result.
As to claim 2, Shenfeld discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: calculate a distance value between the feature value of the first image and the feature value of the third image; calculate a distance value between the feature value of the second image and the feature value of the fourth image; and analyze the correlation between the two objects, based on the calculated distance values (Figs 5E, 26B, 51; pars 0149, 0160, 0192-0195, 0197).
As to claim 8, Shenfeld discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: calculate reliability for a front surface image or a rear surface image and for a side surface image detected from one image of images input from at least two cameras (Figs 5C-5D; pars 0185-0191, calculate confidence level or reliability for (front, rear, and/or side) images captured, note images being captured by at least two cameras); calculate reliability for a front surface image or a rear surface image and for a side surface image detected from another image of the images input from the at least two cameras, when the images are input from the at least two cameras (Figs 5C-5D; pars 0185-0191, a multi-frame analysis, e.g. involving more than one set of images captured by the at least two cameras); and analyze the correlation between the two objects in the two images, based on a weighted sum calculated based on the calculated reliability (Figs 5D, 29, 32, 41; pars 0187, 0191, 0201, 0402, 0410-0411, 0427, 0461, calculate, determine, and/r update confidence level or a weighted average confidence level through correlation of objects/features).
As to claim 9, Shenfeld discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: analyze the correlation between the two objects, based on the first image and the second image (see rejection in claim 1); learn an operation for recognizing the same object (pars 0173, 0223, 0362, 0397-0399, 0402, 0411, detect and recognize objects via training); and recognize the object by reflecting learning data in inputting a next image from the camera (Figs 5B-5C, multi-frame training model for object detection and recognition; pars 0143-0146, 0178, 0182).
As to claim 10, Shenfeld discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to allocate a tracking identity (ID) to an object recognized from the object image (Fig 5B; pars 0173, 0182, 0186-0187, 0189, 0312, 0322, labelling an object for tracking; Fig 31, 46; pars 006, 0013-0016, identifying feature descriptor for detected semantic features), wherein the tacking ID is the same as a tracking ID of an object previously recognized, when the object recognized from the object image has the correlation with the object previously recognized (Figs 32, 41, 46; pars 0007-0012, 0016, 0118, 0188, 0190, 0215, 0217-0219, 0221, correlated with object in database to recognize the object captured).
As to claim 11, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 12, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
As to claim 19, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
As to claim 20, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
Claims 5-6, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenfeld in view of US 2021/0042548 A1, Luo et al. (hereinafter Luo).
As to claim 5, Shenfeld discloses the apparatus of claim 2, a region, which is occupied by each of the first image and the second image, in a bounding box, which is defined as a rectangular region including the object image, based on the bounding box (pars 0311, 397, 0479, 0502, rectangular bounding box occupied with more than one objects and/or features) but does not expressly disclose calculate a proportion of bounding box and analyze reliability for each of the first image and the second image, based on the calculated proportion.
Luo, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches calculate a proportion of a region (bounding box) based on the bounding box (Fig 7; pars 0067-0070, 0080-0082, calculate a proportion of object image/features within the bounding box); and analyze reliability for each of the first image and the second image, based on the calculated proportion (pars 0072, 0084, 0119, assure improvement of accuracy (e.g. reliability)).
Therefore, consider Shenfeld and Luo’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Luo’s teachings in Shenfeld’s apparatus to provide a criterion in determining a confidence level for the images and features captured.
As to claim 6, Shenfeld as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the controller is further configured to analyze the correlation between the two objects, based on a feature value of at least one of the first image and the second image, in response to a determination that reliability of the at least one of the first image or the second image exceeds a reference value (Shenfeld: Figs 29, 31-32; pars 0007-0008, 0011-0012, 0402, 0410-0411, 0427-0430, correlation of two objects/features; pars 0180, 0197, 0260, 0317, 0326, a threshold value; Luo: pars 0076, 0084, 0107-0109, 0128, 0134, a threshold value to determine accuracy or detection reliability).
As to claim 16, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
As to claim 17, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 3-4, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shenfeld in view of US 2022/0083636 A1, Sarkis et al. (hereinafter Sarkis).
As to claim 3, Shenfeld discloses the apparatus of claim 2, discloses calculate a distance between the feature values and analyze the correlation between the two objects but does not expressly teach calculating a Mahalanobis distance between the feature values. Sarkis, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches a Mahalanobis distance may be used as the distance between the feature values (pars 0067, 0070). Therefore, consider Shenfeld and Sarkis’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filling date of invention to incorporate Sarkis’s teachings in Shenfeld’s apparatus to include more than on distance criteria in determining the distance between feature values.
As to claim 4, Shenfeld as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to calculate a cosine distance between the feature values and analyze the correlation between the two objects (Sarkis: pars 0067, 0070-0071).
As to claims 13-14, they are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claims 3-4, respectively.
As to claim 15, it is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 18 are 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Prior art of record (Shenfeld, Luo, and Sarkis) neither discloses alone nor teaches in combination functions and features recited in claim 7. Claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 7.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662