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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-9 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claims 10-18 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “memory”, “processor” and “instructions” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0131284 A1, referred as Lim hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1 as a representative claim, Lim teaches discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor and based on sensing information of a sensor, three-dimensional (3D) ground truth (GT) of a target object (see fig. 1 and para. [0045] (camera; processor 131; 3D ground-truth of an object); fig. 4 and para. [0060] (camera; controller 130; 3D ground-truth of an object; controller 130 comprises a processor as illustrated in fig. 1 and described in para. [0044]; paras. [0042] - [0043] (camera captures images of an object; thus, sensing information is inherently included in the camera (i.e., radiating light and reflected light) are the sensing information) in order to capture images of an object (note: since instant specification does not define what sensing information is, so the BRI is applied herein))); also see para. [0048] (intrinsic value K determined by camera characteristic is referred to claim sensing information));
obtaining, by the processor, a two-dimensional (2D) box for the obtained 3D GT by projecting the obtained 3D GT onto a 2D plane (see paras. [0045] – [0046] (projecting 3D verification information to 2D image, wherein the 3D verification information comprises 3D ground truth); also see paras. [0048] and [0063]);
comparing, by the processor, the 2D box with a box of a 2D that corresponds to the target object and that is obtained based on sensing information of a camera (see figs. 2A-2B and 3 para. [0051] (2D box of 3D box (for example, 2D box P11-P13) and 2D box P1-P3 of 2D image are compared to determine distance information));
generating, by the processor and based on the comparing, an adjusted 3D GT for the target object by adjusting the obtained 3D GT (see para. [0052] (matching points are used to determine the 3D position); and
outputting a signal indicating the adjusted 3D GT (see para. [0066] (controller 130 outputs the final 3D object information); para. [0047] (processor 131 outputs 3D information)).
Regarding claim 2, Lim further teaches wherein the generating of the adjusted 3D GT comprises minimizing a difference between vertices of the 2D box and vertices of the box of the 2D GT (see figs. 2A-2B and 3 para. [0051] (the use of corner points between 2D box of 3D box (for example, 2D box P11-P13) and 2D box P1-P3 of 2D image for determining distance information));.
Regarding claim 3, Lim further teaches wherein the obtaining of the 2D box comprises obtaining a plurality of 3D GTs by reflecting a preset initial error value in the obtained 3D GT (see figs. 2s and 3 and para. [0051] (difference between P1 and P11, for example), and obtaining a 2D box for each of the plurality of 3D GTs (see fig. 2B: 2D box P11-P13 for example), and wherein the generating of the adjusted 3D GT comprises generating, as the adjusted 3D GT, one 3D GT in which a difference between vertices of one of the 2D boxes for the plurality of 3D GTs and vertices of the box of the 2D GT is minimized (see rejection applied to claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 7, Lim further teaches wherein the obtaining of the 2D box comprises obtaining the 2D box by projecting the obtained 3D GT onto the 2D plane in a form of a cuboid (see figs. 2s and 3 and rejection applied to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Lim further teaches wherein the obtaining of the 2D box comprises obtaining the 2D box by changing the obtained 3D GT into coordinate information in a 2D coordinate system for eight vertices of the cuboid and projecting the coordinate information for the eight vertices onto an image (see figs. 2s and 3 and rejection applied to claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 9, Lim further teaches comprising: determining, based on the adjusted 3D GT, a location of the target object (see para. [0052] (3D position information of an object)); and generating, based on the location of the target object, a signal for a vehicle (see paras. [0056] and [0061].
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that it recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 1 and thus the advanced statements as applied to claim 1 is incorporated hereinafter. Lim further teaches one or more processors, and memory storing instructions (see processor 131 and controller 130 as pointed out in the rejection applied to claim 1 above; para. [0044] (memory stores instructions executed by the processor)).
The advanced statements as applied to claim 10 and incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claim 11, it is noted that it recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 2 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that it recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 3 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 16, it is noted that it recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 7 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 17, it is noted that it recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 8 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 18, it is noted that it recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 9 and thus is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 13-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations “wherein the obtaining of the 2D box comprises obtaining a plurality of other 3D GTs by reflecting a first error value to the one 3D GT after changing the initial error value to the first error value that is 10 smaller than the initial error value based on the one 3D GT, and obtaining the 2D boxes for the plurality of other 3D GTs, and wherein the generating of the adjusted 3D GT comprises generating, as the adjusted 3D GT, another 3D GT in which differences between vertices of the 3D GT, of one adjusted 3D GT comprises another 3D GT in which of the 2D boxes for the plurality of other 3D GTs and the vertices of the box of the 2D GT is minimized”.
Each of claims 5-6 depends on claim 4 and thus is allowable for the same reasons as well.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that it recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 4 and thus is allowable for the same reasons as above.
Each of claims 15-16 depends on claim 13 and thus is allowable for the same reasons as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ye et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0209341 Al) teaches 3D object detection comprising a camera for capturing an image of a target object and obtaining 2D and 3D image parameters from such captured image (110 of figure 1).
Van Fleet et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0080583 Al) teaches a system and method for generating synthetic sensor data comprising a plurality of cameras (110 and 112 of figure 1), sensing information (sensor parameters 316 of figure 5A), obtaining 3D images (310 of figure 3) and ground truth data 9344 of figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 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 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.
DMD
2/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662