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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Balasubramanian et al (US 20240394931 A1), hereinafter Balasubramanian.
-Regarding claim 1, Balasubramanian discloses a method comprising (Abstract; FIGS. 1-14
PNG
media_image1.png
360
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
): receiving, by a vehicle (FIGS. 13, vehicle 2; FIG. 14, one or more other vehicles) from a control server (FIGS. 13, vehicle 1), a request to capture an image of a region of interest (FIG. 14, step 1410; FIG. 13, requesting vehicle 1, ROI), wherein at least a portion of the region of interest is blocked from view of a first sensor associated with the control server (FIGS. 9-13; [0041]: “blind spot specific information within a region of interest, to a vehicle with a blocked view”; [0142], “vehicle 1310 has a blocked view of the road ahead and, due to the blocked view”); capturing, by the vehicle, a first image of the region of interest using a second sensor of the vehicle (FIG. 13; FIG. 14, step 1420, “information request … a view of the one or more other vehicles …”; [0042], “provide visual key points and associated feature descriptors of their respective views … from the other vehicles”; [0010], “… LIDAR … cameras …”; FIG. 4; [0150], “a request that the key points are uniformly sampled in an image space … the information request can include at least one of a raw image or a compressed image”); receiving, by the vehicle from the control server, a second image, the image captured by the first sensor and including a portion of the vehicle (FIG. 13; FIG. 14, step 1420, “information request … a view of the first vehicle …”; [0042], “provide visual key points and associated feature descriptors of their respective views … from the first vehicle”; [0010] , “… LIDAR … cameras …”; FIG. 4; [0150], “a request that the key points are uniformly sampled in an image space … the information request can include at least one of a raw image or a compressed image”); and generating, by the vehicle, a combined image using the first and second images, wherein in the combined image, the portion of the vehicle is replaced with a portion of the region of interest (FIG. 13, images 1305c and 1305b; FIG. 14, step 1460, “a combined image having the visual view of the ROI”).
-Regarding claim 8, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 1. Balasubramanian further discloses receiving a third image of the region of interest from a second vehicle; and generating the combined image further using the third image (FIGS. 13-14).
-Regarding claim 16, Balasubramanian discloses a vehicle comprising Abstract; FIGS. 1-14): one or more processors; a memory coupled to the one or more processors; a communication interface coupled to the one or more processors; one or more sensors coupled to the one or more processors; wherein the vehicle is configured to (FIG. 4; [0005]; [0084]): receive, via the communication interface (FIGS. 13, C2C) from a remote server (FIGS. 13, vehicle 1), a first image of a region of interest (FIG. 13; FIG. 14, step 1420, “information request … a view of the first vehicle …”; [0042], “provide visual key points and associated feature descriptors of their respective views … from the first vehicle”; [0010] , “… LIDAR … cameras …”; FIG. 4; [0150], “a request that the key points are uniformly sampled in an image space … the information request can include at least one of a raw image or a compressed image”), wherein in the first image, a first portion of the vehicle is obscuring a first portion of the region of interest (FIGS. 9-13; [0041]: “blind spot specific information within a region of interest, to a vehicle with a blocked view”; [0142], “vehicle 1310 has a blocked view of the road ahead and, due to the blocked view”); receive, from the remote server, a request to capture an image of the region of interest (FIG. 14, step 1410; FIG. 13, requesting vehicle 1, ROI); capture, using the one or more sensors, a second image of the first portion of the region of interest (FIG. 13; FIG. 14, step 1420, “information request … a view of the one or more other vehicles …”; [0042], “provide visual key points and associated feature descriptors of their respective views … from the other vehicles”; [0010], “… LIDAR … cameras …”; FIG. 4; [0150]); and generate, using the first image and the second image, a combined image, wherein in the combined image, the first portion of the vehicle in the first image is replaced with the first portion of the region of interest from the second image (FIG. 13, images 1305c and 1305b; FIG. 14, step 1460, “a combined image having the visual view of the ROI”).
-Regarding claim 17, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 16. Balasubramanian further discloses wherein the one or more sensors include: a proximity sensor, a motion detection sensor, a RADAR, a LiDAR, a camera, or a vibration sensor (FIG. 4; [0101]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al (US 20240394931 A1), hereinafter Balasubramanian in view of Han et al (US 20180101736 A1), hereinafter Han.
-Regarding claim 2, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 1.
Balasubramanian does not disclose sending the combined image to a user device associated with the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Han teaches generating a sight securing image corresponding to a view obstructed by the external vehicle (Han: Abstract; FIGS. 1-14). Han further teaches sending the combined image to a user device associated with the vehicle (Han: FIG. 14, steps 1407-1409; [0216], “provide the generated sight securing image to the display”; FIG. 2B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Balasubramanian with the teaching of Han by sending the combined image to a user device associated with the vehicle in order to provide a good user experience (Han: [0216]).
-Regarding claims 4 and 21, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 1 and the vehicle of claim 16. Balasubramanian further discloses detecting, by the vehicle using the second sensor or a third sensor, presence of an object within the region of interest (FIG. 4; FIG. 5; [0104]-[0105]).
Balasubramanian does not disclose determining a permanence associated with the object; and determining, by the vehicle, that the permanence is above a threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Han teaches generating a sight securing image corresponding to a view obstructed by the external vehicle (Han: Abstract; FIGS. 1-14). Han further teaches determining a permanence associated with the object; and determining that the permanence is above a threshold (Han: [0110], “greater than a threshold distance”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Balasubramanian with the teaching of Han by keeping a threshold distance for driving in order to drive more safely. (Han: [0110]).
-Regarding claim 6, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 1. Balasubramanian further discloses by the vehicle, presence of an object within the portion of the region of interest (FIGS. 12-14).
Balasubramanian does not disclose determining, by the vehicle, that the permanence is above a threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Han teaches generating a sight securing image corresponding to a view obstructed by the external vehicle (Han: Abstract; FIGS. 1-14). Han further teaches determining a permanence associated with the object; and determining that the permanence is above a threshold (Han: [0110], “greater than a threshold distance”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Balasubramanian with the teaching of Han by keeping a threshold distance for driving in order to drive more safely. (Han: [0110]).
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 7, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al (US 20240394931 A1), hereinafter Balasubramanian in view of Mohammed et al (US 12047711 B2).
-Regarding claims 3 and 20, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 1 and the vehicle of claim 16.
Balasubramanian does not disclose autonomously moving the vehicle from its current location to a target location.
In the same field of endeavor, Mohammed teaches a method for surveilling with a vehicle includes receiving an area-of-interest data from a vehicle user (Mohammed: Abstract; FIGS. 2-4). Mohammed further teaches autonomously moving the vehicle from its current location to a target location (Mohammed: Col. 1, lines 35-37, “allows vehicles with autonomous driving capabilities to self-position to monitor the specific area …”, lines 56-61, “autonomously moving the vehicle to a location where the camera is able to capture the images of the entirety of the area of interest …”) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Balasubramanian with the teaching of Balasubramanian by autonomously moving the vehicle from its current location to a target location in order to response to situation the vehicle is not positioned to capture images of the entirety of the area of interest.
-Regarding claim 5, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 1.
Balasubramanian does not disclose wherein the control sever is associated with a security system that is separate from the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Mohammed teaches a method for surveilling with a vehicle includes receiving an area-of-interest data from a vehicle user (Mohammed: Abstract; FIGS. 2-4). Mohammed further teaches wherein the control sever is associated with a security system that is separate from the vehicle (Mohammed: FIG. 2, infrastructure 100, law enforcement surveillance system 200; FIG. 3, system 102; FIG. 4) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Balasubramanian with the teaching of Balasubramanian by using sever which is associated with a security system that is separate from the vehicle in order to provide a different real-world application such as surveillance.
-Regarding claim 7, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 1.
Balasubramanian does not disclose wherein the region of interest is definable using a user device associated with the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Mohammed teaches a method for surveilling with a vehicle includes receiving an area-of-interest data from a vehicle user (Mohammed: Abstract; FIGS. 2-4). Mohammed further teaches wherein the region of interest is definable using a user device associated with the vehicle (Mohammed: FIGS. 2-3; Col. 7, lines 7-50, “demand security video surveillance based on the vehicle user's consent … offer specific zone monitoring … defines a boundary of an area of interest 105 around the vehicle …” ) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Balasubramanian with the teaching of Balasubramanian by using a user device associated with the vehicle to define a region of interest in order to a good user experience.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al (US 20240394931 A1), hereinafter Balasubramanian in view of Shuman et al (US 12391255 B2), hereinafter Shuman.
-Regarding claim 18, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 16. Balasubramanian further discloses detecting the presence of an object within the first portion of the region of interest; (FIGS. 12-13) determining whether the object is of a first type or a second type ([0110], “static or dynamic … related to the detected vehicle or object”);
Balasubramanian does not disclose performing a first action if the object is of the first type; or performing a second action if the object is of the second type
In the same field of endeavor, Shuman teaches a method for enhancing representation of an environment for a vehicle to be generated at least in part based on consolidating and/or fusing together the subset of the different representations (Shuman: Abstract; FIGS. 1-11). Shuman further teaches performing a first action if the object is of the first type; or performing a second action if the object is of the second type (Shuman: FIG. 3). Shuman also teaches detecting the presence of an object within the first portion of the region of interest and determining whether the object is of a first type or a second type (Shuman: FIGS. 5A-5D; Col. 23, line 60 – Col. 24, line 16; Col. 25, lines 18-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Balasubramanian with the teaching of Shuman by detecting object type and performing the corresponding action in order to provide improvements to safety (Shuman: Col. 8, lines 11-21).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al (US 20240394931 A1), hereinafter Balasubramanian in view of Frank (US 11983845 B1).
-Regarding claim 19, Balasubramanian discloses the method of claim 16.
Balasubramanian does not disclose generating a periphery mask, wherein the periphery mask defines an outer contour of the vehicle; and include the periphery mask in the combined image.
In the same field of endeavor, Frank teaches representing an object segmentation from a source digital image which visually indicate a region of interest (Frank: Abstract; FIGS. 1-4). Frank further teaches generating a periphery mask, wherein the periphery mask defines an outer contour of the vehicle; and include the periphery mask in the combined image. (Frank: FIG. 3; Col. 16, lines 11-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Balasubramanian with the teaching of Frank by generating a periphery mask in order to achieve a desired degree of overlap for the region of interest (Frank: Col. 16, lines 11-26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Balasubramanian fails to teach "in the combined image, the portion of the vehicle is replaced with a portion of the region of interest" (Remarks: Page 7, 1st paragraph) because Balasubramanian's combined image does not make any vehicle invisible or transparent (Remarks: Page 7, first paragraph – Page 8, 2nd paragraph). Applicant also argues that Balasubramanian fails to teach generating the combined image with the vehicle (Remarks: Page 8, 2nd paragraph) and “vehicle 1” in Balasubramanian cannot be used as a server (Page 9, 2nd paragraph). Applicant further argues that Han’s “distance” is fundamentally from the claimed “permanence” (Remarks: Page 10, 2nd paragraph – Page 11, 2nd paragraph).
In response to applicant's argument that Balasubramanian fails to teach "in the combined image, the portion of the vehicle is replaced with a portion of the region of interest" because Balasubramanian fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (no vehicle is made “invisible” or “transparent”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
In response to applicant's argument that Balasubramanian fails to teach that generating the combined image with the vehicle and “vehicle 1” in Balasubramanian cannot be used as a server, Balasubramanian discloses a cloud-based virtual view for V2V applications in FIG. 14, and uses FIG. 13 as an example. The process 1400 shown can be performed by a device and the device can be considered as a vehicle (Balasubramanian: [0146], “The device can be … a vehicle … the vehicle 404 of FIG. 4 … or other device) (emphasis added), for example vehicle 1320 (FIG. 13) in this case. Applicant does not provide any special definition for “server”. A plain meaning of “server” is a computer or software system that provides data, resources, or services to other computers called "clients" on a computer network (See “Server (computing) – Wikipedia”). “A First Vehicle” in step 1410 (Balasubramanian: FIG. 14) or vehicle 1310 (Balasubramanian: FIG. 13) can be severed as a server in that sense. Thus, Balasubramanian discloses all the claim limitations recited in claims 1 and 16 (Balasubramanian: FIGS. 13-14).
In response to applicant's argument that Han’s “distance” is fundamentally from the claimed “permanence”, applicant does not have any definition about “permanence”. Applicant only provides an example of “permanence” – timer value in paragraph [0059] of the specification. The plain meaning of “permanence” is a state or quality of lasting. Thus, “distance” can be considered as a “permanence” based on the plain meaning.
Conclusion
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 XIAO LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-4539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:30-4:30.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/XIAO LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
