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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a Reply on 10 June 2026 that:
Amended the title in a manner that overcome the title objection;
Added structural elements including processor and memory to claim 1 that are sufficient to perform the recited functions and thereby overcome the 112f claim interpretations; and
Amended claim 1 to define the candidate point setting to set “candidate points each at a discrete locations” but such amended claim language continues to be met the applied art of record as further explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claim element, quoted below, is not taught by Kanehara.
“a candidate point setting unit configured to set a plurality of candidate points each at discrete locations that are candidates for a presence position of the object on or in a vicinity of a boundary line defining the region of interest”
In response, see Kanehara [0047], [0050], wherein the rectangular area cut out/set by the control device in S402 sets candidates points within that cut-out partial area for further processing. Furthermore, this amended claim element broadly describes “candidate points” in terms of plural points “each at discrete locations” which encompasses the points of the recognized object and/or the region of interest around the object set/detected by Kanehara. Moreover, the points within this detected/set region are also “candidates for a presence position of the object on or in a vicinity of a boundary line defining the region of interest” because the points of the recognized/detected object are not only “candidates” but also directly indicate “a presence position of the object” and are also “on or in a vicinity of a boundary line defining the region of interest”.
Applicant further argues, pgs. 9-10, that the candidate point selection can serve as candidates for presence of a foot of a person referencing the specification at [0029].
In response, these features 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).
Applicant admits that Yoshimi detects ground contact position but argues that Yoshimi does not select a representative point that is regarded as a ground contact position of the object after distortion correction. In response, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections, such as the one above, are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Indeed, Kanehara is relied upon and discloses for the distortion correction features while Yoshimi teaches
Further as to “after distortion correction”, note that Yoshimi teaches that elements of the distortion corrected images in the vertical direction are connected to obtain a ultimate normalized image from which the position detecting unit 20 detects coordinates of the position at which the detected image region and the ground surface intersect each other (ground contact position of the object) as per [0054]-[0058] in order to acquire coordinates and output position information on the ground contact position of the object.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara (US 2022/0319191 A1) and Yoshimi (US 2021/0326608 A1).
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Kanehara discloses an object position detection device {Fig. 1, [0016] including control device 2} comprising:
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire imaging data on a wide-angle image of surrounding conditions of a vehicle cabin captured by a wide-angle camera
{Fig. 1, fisheye cameras 41-44, [0020], [0045], Fig. 4, step S401};
a region setting unit configured to set, in the wide-angle image, a region of interest surrounding a region where an object is regarded to be present
{Fig. 4, Step S402, [0020], [0046]-[0047] which detects a target object and outputs/sets a region of interest around the object};
a candidate point setting unit configured to set a plurality of candidate points each at discrete locations that are candidates for a presence position of the object on or in a vicinity of a boundary line defining the region of interest
{see [0047], [0050], wherein the rectangular area cut out/set by the control device in S402 sets candidates points within that cut-out partial area for further processing. Furthermore, this amended claim element broadly describes “candidate points” in terms of plural points “each at discrete locations” which encompasses the points of the recognized object and/or the region of interest around the object set/detected by Kanehara. Moreover, the points within this detected/set region are also “candidates for a presence position of the object on or in a vicinity of a boundary line defining the region of interest” because the points of the recognized/detected object are not only “candidates” but also directly indicate “a presence position of the object” and are also “on or in a vicinity of a boundary line defining the region of interest”};
a representative point selection unit configured to determine a reference point at a predetermined position in the region of interest, execute distortion correction on the reference point and the candidate points, center point 301 (reference point). See also [0050], [0055] which determines the reference point (the correction center point) in the region of interest (partial, cut-out area) and executed distortion reduction process to correct the spatial distortion caused by the fish-eye (wide-angle) lens};
Yoshimi is analogous art from the same field of object position detection and solves similar problems of correcting image distortion caused by fish-eye lenses. See abstract, Figs. 1-3b including object detection apparatus 100 and position detecting unit 20.
Yoshimi also teaches
selecting a representative point that is regarded as a ground contact position of the object from among the candidate points after the distortion correction; a coordinate acquisition unit configured to acquire three-dimensional coordinates of the representative point; and an output unit configured to output position information on the ground contact position of the object based on the three-dimensional coordinates.
{elements of the distortion corrected images in the vertical direction are connected to obtain a ultimate normalized image from which the position detecting unit 20 detects coordinates of the position at which the detected image region and the ground surface intersect each other (ground contact position of the object) as per [0054]-[0058] in order to acquire coordinates and output position information on the ground contact position of the object}.
It 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 to have modified Kanehara which already discloses a candidate point setting unit configured to set a plurality of candidate points that are candidates for a presence position of the object on or in a vicinity of a boundary line defining the region of interest and a representative point selection unit configured to determine a reference point at a predetermined position in the region of interest, execute distortion correction on the reference point and the candidate points such that, within this region of interest, further processing is performed including selecting a representative point that is regarded as a ground contact position of the object from among the candidate points after the distortion correction, a coordinate acquisition unit configured to acquire three-dimensional coordinates of the representative point; and an output unit configured to output position information on the ground contact position of the object based on the three-dimensional coordinates as taught by Yoshimi because performing such further processing within a within the cut-out partial area (region of interest) reduces the amount of processing necessary as compared to processing the entire image; because there is a reasonable expectation of success; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Kanehara discloses wherein the representative point selection unit regards a central position of the object to be present at a center of the region of interest, and sets the reference point at the center of the region of interest.
{see [0040] including rectangular area 302 with correction center point 301 (reference point). See also [0050], [0055] which determines the reference point (the correction center point) in the region of interest (partial, cut-out area) and executed distortion reduction process to correct the spatial distortion caused by the fish-eye (wide-angle) lens}.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara and Yoshimi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freeman (US 20150199816 A1).
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Kanehara discloses wherein the region setting unit sets the region of interest having a rectangular shape surrounding the object
Freeman is analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor which is determining the lowest point (e.g. ground contact point) of an object. See Figs. 1, 5a- 5c, 6, and 7.
Freeman also teaches a candidate point setting unit sets the plurality of candidate points at substantially equal intervals on the boundary line of the region of interest {See Figs. 6-7 particularly the candidate points ba-bn which are set at equal intervals on the boundary line of the region of interest (a foot contacting the ground) as further discussed in [0004], [0011], [0058], [0074], [0096], [0103]}.
It 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 to have modified Kanehara which already discloses wherein the region setting unit sets the region of interest having a rectangular shape surrounding the object and a candidate point setting unit such that the candidate point setting unit sets the plurality of candidate points at substantially equal intervals on the boundary line of the region of interest as taught by Freeman because doing so more accurately determines the position of the lowest point of a human foot and thereby the ground contact point thus improving the ground contact position determination of Yoshimi; because there is a reasonable expectation of success; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Although the applied art above renders obvious the broadly-recited representative point setting as detailed above, none of the prior art of record discloses or fairly suggests wherein the representative point selection unit sets, as the representative point, the candidate point at a position closest to a normal line, the normal line being drawn downward in a vertical direction from the reference point, in a direction orthogonal to the normal line. This concept is illutrated in instant Fig. 5 (copied below) showing representative point 62 which selected from among the candidate points 58 at the position closest to normal line PL being drawn downward in vertical dierection from reference point 56 in directino orthtogonal to the normal line. This process more accurately determined the location of the ground contact point of the object (e.g. pedestrian).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
King US 20240233184 A1 discloses a method of determining the ground contact point of a human. See fig. 2, [0047]-[0048].
Tasaki US 20090238407 A1 discloses a candidate point concept from which a contact point between the ground and the object boundary is determined. See [0089], fig. 9.
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 R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm EST.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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 ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights