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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7, and 9-14 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 being independent. Claims 2-4, 6, and 10 have been amended and claims 11-14 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 April 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 05 February 2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 05 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 1-10, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 1-10 has been maintained.
With respect to claims 1, 7, 9, and 10, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations remains unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
as to whom is being provided the at least one image which results from a recording by at least one image-capturing device? Providing implies that the method is providing the image to another entity to be acted upon. Did applicant intend to claim receiving, so that the method could operate on the at least one image? While applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “providing” an image in this context means making the image available as input for the method’s processing steps – applicant’s specification does not redefine the term “providing” and it is unclear as to whom it is being provided. Accordingly, the scope of the claim remains unclear and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection has been maintained. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner is interpreting the claimed limitation to obtain at least one image. The same paragraph cited by the applicant in their remarks provides explicit support for replacing providing with obtaining in that it recites ‘the image can e.g., have been obtained via an interface’, see page 5, paragraph 1 of applicant’s remarks.
Applicant’s remarks have clarified the scope of splitting the image into a plurality of image columns. For the purposes of further examination, and as noted by the applicant, an image column is being interpreted as a vertical segment of the image to which pixels are assigned. That is the limitation is being interpreted as splitting the image into a plurality of vertical segments, each comprising pixels of the image that correspond to the vertical segment.
It remains unclear as to what is being claimed in “generating the environment representation, one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column of the at least one provided image being parameterized for this purpose in order to represent the object and/or the navigable region”. Is this step claiming generating the environmental representation, or is it claiming generating in the environmental representation – if it is the later then at what point was the environmental representation generated? If it is the former, then how the does the one stixel and/or free space element fit in? Stated differently, is the claim calling for generating the environmental representation and generating one stixel and/or free space element or is it calling for generating in the environmental representation, one stixel and/or free space element? Furthermore, it is unclear as to if the stixel and/or free space element is generated/constructed/etc for the image column or if this has already been computed? Is each image column reduced to a stixel? What is meant by parameterized for this purpose and how does that allow for the representation of the object and/or navigable region? What is “this purpose”?
Applicant’s remarks on page 11 and the disclosure on page 4 clarify scope of a stixel as claimed - a stixel is a superpixel representation of depth information in an image in the form of a vertical stick (also called a strip). The examiner is interpreting the “vertical stick” to be a respective image column/vertical segment into which the image is divided.
as to what is being claimed in “characterized in that the environment representation is generated at least in part based on an output of a model which is adapted to process the at least one provided image in different resolutions as an input”. What precisely is being characterized? How is the environment representation generated based on a generic model the processes the provided image in different resolutions as an input? How does this tie into the columns? How is the generically recited model adapted?
Since the scope of the claims remain unclear, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 1, 7, 9, and 10 and claims depending thereon have been maintained.
With respect to claim 2, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
what is being characterized, in the limitation “characterized in that the model is configured as a machine learning model”. What does the characterization go to? Is applicant attempting to claim that the model is a machine learning model? Or is applicant attempting to claim that the model utilizes a machine learning model?
Applicant has clarified the scope – and removed the terms “preferably”, “particularly preferably”, “in particular”, etc from the claimed limitation
Applicant’s remarks have clarified the scope of the model indicating a plurality of possible positions for the stixel and/or free space element in the respective image column, the stixel and/or free space element being parameterized based on the indicated possible positions. The examiner agrees that based on the corresponding disclosure that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claimed element.
Since the scope of claim 2 remains unclear, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 2 has been maintained.
With respect to claim 3, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations remains unclear. For instance, remains unclear as to:
What is being characterized and how the parameterization is defined by at least the lowermost point? The lowermost point of what? While the applicant argues that the claim language is consistent with a column-wise pixel position determined via ordinal regression output, the examiner notes that limitations from the disclosure are not read into the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim currently recites that the “respective stixel and/or free space element is parameterized in that the respective stixel and/or free space element is defined at least by a lowermost point” – but doesn’t set forth as to what the lowermost point corresponds to. Does the applicant mean the lower most point of the respective vertical segment/image column? Does applicant mean a lower most point of the respective stixel and/or frees pace element? If so, then one potential path forward would be to amend the claim to recite to what the lowermost point corresponds.
Since the scope of claim 3 remains unclear, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 3 has been maintained.
With respect to claim 4, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
What is being characterized in the limitation “characterized in that the model...”? What is being claimed in the characterization in that the model is adapted to process the at least one provided image in the different resolutions as an input in that a height of the image columns is substantially maintained by the model when processing the provided image and/or a plurality of possible positions of the stixel and/or free space element are ascertained in the respective image column and are made available for selection in the output, a number of possible positions that are ascertained and/or output by the model”? What is being made available for selection? Is it the plurality of possible positions of the stixel and/or free space element being ascertained in the respective image column? If so, the and/or previously makes it unclear as to what before that could also be selected in the output. In addition, it is not clear what “a number of possible positions that are ascertained and/or output by the model” is referencing.
Applicant’s amendment has clarified the scope of the different resolutions preferably differ with respect to the height of the image columns and how is the model adapted to process images in at least 10, at least 100, and at least 1000 different resolutions.
Since the scope of claim 4 remains unclear, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 4 has been maintained.
With respect to claim 5, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations remains unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
What is being characterized in the claimed limitation? Is the model changeable between different types – since this limitation is configuring it as a machine learning model? What constitutes the application as claimed? Is it an application, such as a program or an application as in an instance? While applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the distinction between training resolution and application resolution, that does not address the noted scope deficiencies. As such, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 5 has been maintained.
With respect to claim 6, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations remains unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
What is being characterized is characterized in the claim? How is the characterization based on at least partially automated evaluation of the generated environment representation? Is that similar to a feedback element? The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 6 has been maintained.
With respect to claim 7, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations remains unclear. For instance, in addition to those noted earlier (wrt claim 1), it remains unclear as to:
How the machine learning model predicts a plurality of possible positions per image column for a respective stixel and/or free space element of the image columns? What constitutes the machine learning model and how does it predict the positions?
How is the image split into a plurality of image columns in different resolutions as input. Do each of the columns have a different resolution? How is resolution being defined by the applicant (e.g., different column widths? Different pixel densities? Etc).
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 7 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 05 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 10, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following interpretations are being applied to the claims:
An image column is being interpreted as a vertical segment of the image to which pixels are assigned, see page 10 of the specification and page 10 of applicant’s remarks.
A free space element is being interpreted as a column-wise representation of the navigable region defined by its boundary position, see pages 2 and 14 of the specification and pages 10 and 11 of applicant’s arguments.
A stixel is being interpreted as “a superpixel representation of depth information in an image in the form of a vertical stick (also called a strip)”, see page 4 of applicant’s specification and page 11 of applicant’s remarks. The examiner is interpreting the “vertical stick” to be a respective image column/vertical segment into which the image is divided.
Different resolutions are being interpreted as different input resolutions from various cameras as set forth by the applicant on page 11 of their remarks.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 should recite “the machine learning model comprises at least one or exactly one artificial neural network”.
Claim 12 should recite “the ordinal regression”
Claim 14 should recite “the
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
With respect to claim 1, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
as to whom is being provided the at least one image which results from a recording by at least one image-capturing device? Providing implies that the method is providing the image to another entity to be acted upon. Did applicant intend to claim receiving, so that the method could operate on the at least one image? While applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “providing” an image in this context means making the image available as input for the method’s processing steps – applicant’s specification does not redefine the term “providing” and it is unclear as to whom it is being provided. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner is interpreting the claimed limitation to obtain at least one image. The same paragraph cited by the applicant in their remarks provides explicit support for replacing providing with obtaining in that it recites ‘the image can e.g., have been obtained via an interface’, see page 5, paragraph 1 of applicant’s remarks.
as to what is being claimed in “generating the environment representation, one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column of the at least one provided image being parameterized for this purpose in order to represent the object and/or the navigable region”. Is this step claiming generating the environmental representation, or is it claiming generating in the environmental representation – if it is the later then at what point was the environmental representation generated? If it is the former, then how the does the one stixel and/or free space element fit in? Stated differently, is the claim calling for generating the environmental representation and generating one stixel and/or free space element or is it calling for generating in the environmental representation, one stixel and/or free space element? Furthermore, it is unclear as to if the stixel and/or free space element is generated/constructed/etc for the image column or if this has already been computed? Is each image column reduced to a stixel? What is meant by parameterized for this purpose and how does that allow for the representation of the object and/or navigable region? What is “this purpose”? Finally is “in order to represent the object and/or navigable region” intended use? How does the representation relate to this purpose?
as to what is being claimed in “characterized in that the environment representation is generated at least in part based on an output of a model which is adapted to process the at least one provided image in different resolutions as an input”. What precisely is being characterized? How is the environment representation generated based on a generic model the processes the provided image in different resolutions as an input? If the different resolutions come from different cameras, as argued, wouldn’t the claim need to have at least two images? How does this tie into the columns? How is the generically recited model adapted?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
Similar limitations recited in claims 7, 9, 10 are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 1.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 2, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations remains unclear. For instance, remains unclear as to:
what is being characterized, in the limitation “characterized in that the model is configured as a machine learning model”. What does the characterization go to? Is applicant attempting to claim that the model is a machine learning model? Or is applicant attempting to claim that the model utilizes a machine learning model?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 3, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations remains unclear. For instance, remains unclear as to:
What is being characterized and how the parameterization is defined by at least the lowermost point? The lowermost point of what? While the applicant argues that the claim language is consistent with a column-wise pixel position determined via ordinal regression output, the examiner notes that limitations from the disclosure are not read into the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim currently recites that the “respective stixel and/or free space element is parameterized in that the respective stixel and/or free space element is defined at least by a lowermost point” – but doesn’t set forth as to what the lowermost point corresponds to. Does the applicant mean the lower most point of the respective vertical segment/image column? Does applicant mean a lower most point of the respective stixel and/or free space element? If so, then one potential path forward would be to amend the claim to recite to what the lowermost point corresponds.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 4, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
What is being characterized in the limitation “characterized in that the model...”? What is being claimed in the characterization in that the model is adapted to process the at least one provided image in the different resolutions as an input in that a height of the image columns is substantially maintained by the model when processing the provided image and/or a plurality of possible positions of the stixel and/or free space element are ascertained in the respective image column and are made available for selection in the output, a number of possible positions that are ascertained and/or output by the model”? What is being made available for selection? Is it the plurality of possible positions of the stixel and/or free space element being ascertained in the respective image column? If so, the and/or previously makes it unclear as to what before that could also be selected in the output. In addition, it is not clear what “a number of possible positions that are ascertained and/or output by the model” is referencing.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 5, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
What is being characterized in the claimed limitation? Is the model changeable between different types – since this limitation is configuring it as a machine learning model? What constitutes the application as claimed? Is it an application, such as a program or an application as in an instance? While applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the distinction between training resolution and application resolution, that does not address the noted scope deficiencies.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 6, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
What is being characterized in the claim?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 6 to recite something similar to “The method of claim 1, further comprising, controlling an at least partially autonomous robot based on an at least partially automated evaluation of the generated environment representation” (or conversely, “The method of claim 1, wherein based on an at least partially automated evaluation of the generated environment representation, an at least partially autonomous robot is controlled”),
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 7, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
How the machine learning model predicts a plurality of possible positions per image column for a respective stixel and/or free space element of the image columns? What constitutes the machine learning model and how does it predict the positions?
How is the image split into a plurality of image columns in different resolutions as input. Do each of the columns have a different resolution? How is resolution being defined by the applicant (e.g., different column widths? Different pixel densities? Etc).
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 12, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by “depth information on a distance of the object represented by the stixel and/or free space element is assigned to the lowermost point”? Is the depth information of a distance? Is it based on a distance? Furthermore how is the object represented by a stixel and/or free space element, when for instance, the stixel is a superpixel representation of depth information in an image in the form of a vertical stick? What depth information is assigned to the lowermost point? Is it the depth information of the distance to the object? or of the object? And it is of the object, is the distance a value? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 13, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
What is “the resolution” referencing? The previous limitations all are with respect to different resolutions. Wouldn’t the ouput of the model by default be dependent upon the resolution of the input image?
the scope of preferably differing? Is that a required element or a preferred element? How can the resolutions have different heights if in claim 4 the image columns are maintained to have the same height? What are the different resolutions – if they come from different images how are they combined together to fit within the scope of the claim?
how is the model adapted to process images in at least 10, at least 100, or at least 1000 different resolutions? Do the resolutions indicate a selection process? Are the 1000 different resolutions, for instance, from 1000 different images from various cameras, since applicant argues that “The term ‘different resolutions’ refers to different input image resolutions from various cameras, not multi-resolution representations within a single image”?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 14, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves or when interpreted in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to: what “the images” is referencing and if a differing resolution is referencing a different resolution than the different resolutions previously cited or if applicant is attempting to claim that the plurality of image-capturing devices provide images in different resolutions from each other. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims, based on the current scope of the claims, claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Badino et al. teaches “The Stixel World – A Compact Medium Level Representation of the 3D-World”.
Di Laurea teaches “3D StixelNet Deep Neural Network for 3D objection detection stixel-based”.
US 2019/0361456 to Zeng et al. teaches stixels approximate boundaries that are detected, see for instance, paragraph 9, 22, and 97. A freespace grid or image segmentation of freespace (represented byf 141-B); ...and stixels (represented by 141-D), see for instance, paragraph 117.
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 MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615