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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 June 2026 has been entered.
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 1-7, and 11-14 have been amended.
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 pages 6-9, filed 23 June 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-14, 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 1-7 and 9-14 has been maintained.
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 remains unclear. Applicant’s amendment addressed the previously raised points. However, the claimed limitation remains unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
what is being claimed in “generating the environment representation by parameterizing one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column of the at least one provided image to represent the object and/or navigable region”. The previous limitation splits the image into a plurality of image columns. Is applicant attempting to claim parameterizing in a single image column? In each image column of the plurality of image columns? The respective image column does not appear to reference back to claim language which has been previously established. Stated differently, how does parameterizing one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column generate an environment representation of the object and/or navigable region? The claim only requires a single stixel/free space element and a single image column.
as to how the final limitation, which recites 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, fits in with the environment representation being generated by parameterizing one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column of the at least one provided image to represent the object and/or navigable region? How is the representation generated at least in part based on an output of a model which is adapted to process the at least one provided image and by parameterizing one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column? Is the parameterization done within the model? Or is the parameterization done before/after the model input? Page 11 of applicant’s disclosure sets forth “By contrast, in the model 50 according to configuration variants of the invention, the clumping can be dispensed with and, instead a plurality of possible parameters for the stixel/free space per image column 41 are obtained. Accordingly, in the output 52, the final parameterization of the respective stixel/free space element is not yet fixed. For selecting and specifying the parameters, post-processing of the output 52 can be provided, preferably by an ordinal regression”. Is the parameterization done within the model or is it a post processing on the model output?
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 claim 1 and claims depending thereon have been maintained
With respect to claims 2, 3 and 6, applicant’s amendments and remarks have clarified the scope of the claimed limitation, as such, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claim 2, 3 and 6 have been withdrawn.
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. Applicant’s amendment has clarified the scope of each of the previously raised issues, with the exception of 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. Is it the model? If so, then the use of are makes it unclear. 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. Applicant’s amendment has clarified the scope of each of the previously raised issues, with the exception of as to if the model is changeable between different types – since this limitation is configuring the model as a machine learning model. While the specification uses the words configured as, it does not appear to clarify the scope as to how the model is configured as a machine learning model. 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. One potential pathway forward would be to amend the claim to recite that the model is a machine learning model (i.e., remove the “configured as” portion)
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. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards limitations that are not present in the claim, such as the model’s output tensor. In addition, while the applicant argues the “term "different resolutions" refers to input resolutions originating from various cameras with different sensor capabilities” the claim calls for the image to be split into a plurality of image columns in different resolutions. That is, the columns within the image have differing resolutions. Presumably, the image is from a camera having a given resolution and not a fused image or a variable resolution image. Applicant’s arguments have clarified that the different resolutions are with respect to the height of the image columns. However, wouldn’t the height of the image column be the same the same, since the image is split “into a plurality of image columns refers to dividing the image into vertical segments where pixels are assigned to a specific column index” (see page 8 of applicant’s remarks). The specification and figures describe and illustrate the stixels/free space elements having differing heights, but it remains unclear as to how the image is being split into a plurality of columns in different resolutions. Does applicant mean that the pixel density of the column varies? That the column width changes? Or should the claim language be amended to capture something similar to applicant’s arguments with respect to different resolutions – namely that they originate from various cameras with different sensor capabilities/settings? In addition, it remains unclear as to how the machine learning model...predicts a plurality of possible positions per image column for a respective stixel/free space element of the image columns. The claim calls for it to be both per image column and of the image columns. Is it predicting a plurality of possible positions for a respective stixel/free space element for each of the image columns of the plurality of image columns? The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 7 has been maintained.
With respect to claims 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. Claims 9 and 10 have not been amended. 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.
It remains unclear as to what is being claimed in “generate 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”?
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 7, 9, and 10 and claims depending thereon have been maintained.
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 remains unclear. Applicant argues that depth information specifically refers to the distance of the object from the image-capturing device. However, the claim recites “depth information on a distance of the object represented by the stixel and/or free space element is assigned to the lowermost point”. As claimed, it is not clear as to what depth information on a distance of the object represented by the stixel/free space element is referencing. Furthermore, while applicant argues assigning depth information to the lowermost point is a standard way to parameterize the distance to the base of an obstacle, it remains unclear as to what the lowermost point is referencing – is it the lowermost point of a respective stixel/free space element as amended in claim 2 for instance? 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 claim 12 has been maintained.
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 remains unclear. For instance, it remains unclear as to how the resolutions have different heights if in claim 4, from which claim 13 depends, 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?
Due to the noted claim interpretation of the model being adapted to process, along with applicant’s remarks has clarified the scope of the modeling being adapted to process images in at least 10...different resolutions. Resolutions are from different camera images, not a multi-resolution image.
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 claim 13 has been maintained.
With respect to claim 14, applicant’s amendments and remarks have clarified the scope of the claimed limitation, as such, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claim 14 has been withdrawn. The at least one image capturing device comprising a plurality of image-capturing devices which are configured to provide images in a differing resolution is being interpreted such that the “plurality of image-capturing devices provide images in different resolutions from each other”.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 10, filed 23 June 2026, with respect to the objections to claims 11, 12, and 14, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 11, 12, and 14 have 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.
“Model which is adapted to process” is being interpreted as the model is able to process the at least one obtained image in different resolutions as an input. The adaptation here is not changing of the model, but rather the model is able to process the at least one image. Page 3 of applicant’s disclosure sets forth “an output of model which can be adapted, in particular without modifying the model and/or without retraining the model, to process the at least one provided image in different resolutions....as an input”
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should recite either “generating the environment representation.....image column of the at least one obtained image....the at least one obtained image in different resolutions as input” or “generating the environment representation.....image column of the at least one ...
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 1-7 and 9-14 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 what is being claimed in “generating the environment representation by parameterizing one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column of the at least one provided image to represent the object and/or navigable region”. The previous limitation splits the image into a plurality of image columns. Is applicant attempting to claim parameterizing in a single image column? In each image column of the plurality of image columns? The respective image column does not appear to reference back to claim language which has been previously established. Stated differently, how does parameterizing one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column generate an environment representation of the object and/or navigable region? The claim only requires a single stixel/free space element and a single image column.
as to how the final limitation, which recites 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, fits in with the environment representation being generated by parameterizing one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column of the at least one provided image to represent the object and/or navigable region? How is the representation generated at least in part based on an output of a model which is adapted to process the at least one provided image and by parameterizing one stixel and/or free space element of the respective image column? Is the parameterization done within the model? Or is the parameterization done before/after the model input? Page 11 of applicant’s disclosure sets forth “By contrast, in the model 50 according to configuration variants of the invention, the clumping can be dispensed with and, instead a plurality of possible parameters for the stixel/free space per image column 41 are obtained. Accordingly, in the output 52, the final parameterization of the respective stixel/free space element is not yet fixed. For selecting and specifying the parameters, post-processing of the output 52 can be provided, preferably by an ordinal regression”. Is the parameterization done within the model or is it a post processing on the model output?
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 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 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. Is it the model? If so, then the use of are makes it unclear. 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 if the model changeable between different types – since this limitation is configuring it as a machine learning model?
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
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. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards limitations that are not present in the claim, such as the model’s output tensor. In addition, while the applicant argues the “term "different resolutions" refers to input resolutions originating from various cameras with different sensor capabilities” the claim calls for the image to be split into a plurality of image columns in different resolutions. That is, the columns within the image have differing resolutions. Presumably, the image is from a camera having a given resolution and not a fused image or a variable resolution image. Applicant’s arguments have clarified that the different resolutions are with respect to the height of the image columns. However, wouldn’t the height of the image column be the same the same, since the image is split “into a plurality of image columns refers to dividing the image into vertical segments where pixels are assigned to a specific column index” (see page 8 of applicant’s remarks). The specification and figures describe and illustrate the stixels/free space elements having differing heights, but it is unclear as to how the image is being split into a plurality of columns in different resolutions. In addition, it is unclear as to how the machine learning model...predicts a plurality of possible positions per image column for a respective stixel/free space element of the image columns. The claim calls for it to be both per image column and of the image columns. Is it predicting a plurality of possible positions for a respective stixel/free space element for each of the image columns of the plurality of image columns? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 9, 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, and 10 are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 9.
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 how 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? 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.
US PG Publication 2022/0366176 to Rotker et al. teaches that sensor fusion-based top-view stixel representation is used for obstacle detection in a vehicle and to control an operation of the vehicle, see for instance, abstract and paragraph 1.
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
Prosecution Insights