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
The office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 07/10/2026 which has
been entered and made of record. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. Claims 4, 11, and 16 were previously canceled. No claim has been newly added or canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-15, and 17-21 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 12-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weslosky et al (US 20220157164 A1, hereinafter Weslosky) in view of.
Regarding claim 1, Weslosky teaches An information processing device comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising ([0107] “A tangible medium may be substantially any computer-readable medium that is capable of storing logic or computer program code which may be executed, e.g., by a processor or an overall computing system, to perform methods and functions associated with the embodiments.”):
acquire sensing information from an in-vehicle sensor mounted on a vehicle ([0043] “Vehicle 101 includes sensor system 324′ which may generally include one or more cameras. Such cameras may generally collect visual data relating to the environment around vehicle 101”);
detect an object around the vehicle based on the acquired sensing information ([0038] “and to determine the presence of objects in a vicinity around autonomous vehicle 101 based on data, e.g., results, from sensor system 324”, [0048] “An obstacle may be any object or feature that may have an effect on a vehicle and/or a path that the vehicle is traveling on”);
determine a display mode related to the detected object based on whether the detected object satisfies a condition accumulated in the memory ([0050] “then it is determined in a step 521 in whether the obstacle is to have an overlay and/or context. That is, it is determined whether the obstacle is to have an associated indicator configured to enable the obstacle to be substantially identified.”),
and display, on the display, the detected object and information related to the detected object based on the display mode, wherein in case that the detected object does not satisfy the condition, the display mode is a first mode in which the information related to the detected object does not display support information that assists a driver of the vehicle to visually view the detected object on the display ([0051] “If the determination in step 521 is that the obstacle is not to have an overlay and/or context, the scene is displayed on a display arrangement of a remote system with the obstacle depicted but without an overlay and/or context for the obstacle in a step 525”),
and in case that the detected object satisfies the condition, the display mode is a second mode in which the information related to the detected object displays the support information that assists the driver to visually view the detected object on the display ([0003] “The information displayed on the display screen is also used to allow the remote operator to accurately view the environment”, [0052] “On the other hand, if it is determined in step 521 that the obstacle is to have an overlay and/or context, then in a step 529, a scene is displayed on a display arrangement with an overlay over the obstacle and/or context relating to the obstacle.”), the support information superimposing, on the detected object, a pictogram indicating a type of the detected object ([0055] “a shape for an overlay for the obstacle is identified. It should be appreciated that different types of objects may be identified by the shape of an overlay, in addition to a color. For instance, rounded rectangles may be used to highlight pedestrians, bicycles, and bicyclists, while rectangles may be used to highlight all other objects. Alternatively, each type of object may be identified by a different shape”, [0073] “overlays 860b, 860a may be of particular shapes and/or colors which are associated with obstacle types”).
Weslosky fails to explicitly teach the condition being related to visibility of the detected object on a display mounted on the vehicle. In related field of endeavor, Matajira teaches the condition being related to visibility of the detected object on a display mounted on the vehicle ([0039] “the driving conditions for automatically turning on the system comprise night time, areas with poor illumination or foggy conditions.”, see also [0082]), and Matajira also teaches the support information superimposing, on the detected object, a pictogram indicating a type of the detected object ([0088] “if the radar detection indicates an object in proximity of the vehicle then the radar detection only will be processed to illustrate a block, a pre-determined figure e.g. a dog figure or a moose figure or a silhouette corresponding to the contours of the detected object in the representation indicative of the object according to the detected object.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Weslosky to include the condition being related to visibility of the detected object on a display mounted on the vehicle as taught by Matajira. Doing so would help a driver to focus on driving and dangers ahead ([0040] “An advantage of automatically turning on the system at driving conditions which impair visibility is that the driver can focus on the driving”, [0056] “An advantage of the processing is that any surroundings or any other disturbances in the obtained image can be removed such that the processed image is focused on the detected object and thereby generating a representation indicative of the object based on the processed image such that the driver is made aware of the danger ahead clearly and without disturbances on the display.”)
Regarding claim 2, Weslosky as modified by Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Weslosky further teaches wherein the information related to the detected object includes detection information related to the detected object ([0056] “Using sensor data obtained from a sensor system of a vehicle, it may be determined whether an object is movable and/or is moving.”, [0057] “If the determination is that the obstacle is movable and/or is moving, then a movability indication is associated with the obstacle in a step 625. A movability indication may be an icon or character, positioned in the vicinity of the obstacle, which signifies that the obstacle is moving.”).
Regarding claim 3, Weslosky as modified by Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Weslosky further teaches wherein the sensing information includes at least one of an image obtained by capturing surroundings of the vehicle ([0043] “Vehicle 101 includes sensor system 324′ which may generally include one or more cameras. Such cameras may generally collect visual data relating to the environment around vehicle 101”) and a measurement result obtained by measuring the surroundings of the vehicle ([0060] “A determination is made in a step 637 as to whether a brake line is needed or appropriate to include in a scene on a display screen. It should be appreciated that a brake line may be needed if there is a stop sign or a traffic signal along the path of a vehicle. That is, a brake line may be appropriate if there is an expected point in the substantially immediate path of a vehicle at which the vehicle is anticipated to come to a stop.”, [0091] “processing information obtained from a sensor system of a vehicle, for example, and determining at which point the vehicle may come to a substantially absolute stop given factors including, but not limited to including, the speed at which the vehicle is traveling, the environment in which the vehicle is traveling, the obstacles in the environment, the braking capabilities of the vehicle, and/or the distance between the current location of the vehicle and a location at which the vehicle is expected to come to a stop.”).
Regarding claim 5, Weslosky as modified by Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Matajira further teaches wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where a time when the object is detected corresponds to a determined time or a determined time zone ([0082] “the warning system may be automatically or manually turned on and off depending on driving conditions e.g. at night time, in areas with poor illumination or foggy conditions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Weslosky and Matajira to include wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where a time when the object is detected corresponds to a determined time or a determined time zone as taught by Matajira. Doing so would allow the driver to focus on driving ([0040] “An advantage of automatically turning on the system at driving conditions which impair visibility is that the driver can focus on the driving and not on judging if the driving conditions are appropriate for turning on the system”)
Regarding claim 6, Weslosky as modified by Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Matajira further teaches wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where an illuminance around the detected object or the vehicle deviates from a determined threshold range ([0082] “the warning system may be automatically or manually turned on and off depending on driving conditions e.g. at night time, in areas with poor illumination or foggy conditions.”, [0088] “obtaining a night vision image of the detected object 500 at night time or in surroundings with poor illumination”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Weslosky and Matajira to include wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where a time when the object is detected corresponds to a determined time or a determined time zone as taught by Matajira. Doing so would allow the driver to focus on driving ([0040] “An advantage of automatically turning on the system at driving conditions which impair visibility is that the driver can focus on the driving and not on judging if the driving conditions are appropriate for turning on the system”)
Regarding claim 9 , Weslosky as modified by Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Matajira further teaches wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case corresponding to determined weather ([0005] “there is a need to improve visibility in a vehicle at non-optimal driving conditions such as at night time, in areas with poor illumination or at foggy conditions which impair the visibility.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Weslosky and Matajira to include wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case corresponding to determined weather as taught by Matajira. Doing so would allow the driver to focus on driving ([0040] “An advantage of automatically turning on the system at driving conditions which impair visibility is that the driver can focus on the driving and not on judging if the driving conditions are appropriate for turning on the system”)
Regarding claim 12, Weslosky as modified by Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Weslosky further teaches wherein the processor, in operation, further outputs, to the display, an image obtained by capturing surroundings of the vehicle, and the display superimposes and displays the image and the information related to the detected object ([0045] “a display screen or a monitor which may be used to display a scene within which obstacles are substantially highlighted using overlays and/or contextual information.”).
Regarding claim 13, the method claim 13 is similar in scope to the information processing device claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14, the method claim 14 is similar in scope to the information processing device claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15, the method claim 15 is similar in scope to the information processing device claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, the method claim 17 is similar in scope to the device claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, the method claim 18 is similar in scope to the device claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 7-8, 10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weslosky as modified by Matajira as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Herman (US 20200218910 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Weslosky as modified by Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where a contrast difference between the detected object and a background of the object deviates from a determined threshold range. In related field of endeavor, Herman teaches wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where a contrast difference between the detected object and a background of the object deviates from a determined threshold range ([0011] “A comparison of the color (hue, saturation, intensity) and intensity gradients can be used to detect a lack of contrast. In response to the lack of contrast, a highlight frame or border can again be placed around the object”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Weslosky and Matajira to include wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where a contrast difference between the detected object and a background of the object deviates from a determined threshold range as taught by Herman. Doing so would allow recognition to be improved ([0011] “highlight frame can be placed around the object in the image to improve recognition.”)
Regarding claim 8, Weslosky as modified by Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where the detected object is out of sight. In related field of endeavor, Herman teaches wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where the detected object is out of sight ([0030] “person 25, and vantage point 26, a main portion of person 25 is obscured from the vantage point 26. For example, rays (i.e., sight-lines) 28 extending from vantage point 26 to person 25 intersect with vehicle 10, and due to the opacity of vehicle 10 an image of person 25 is blocked from the simulated image being generated for vantage point 26”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Weslosky and Matajira to include wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where the detected object is out of sight as taught by Herman. Doing so would allow the object to be revealed by adjusting transparency ([0042] “determine whether the image size of the object that has been revealed (unobscured) by the transparency is large enough to be easily discernible.”)
Regarding claim 10, Weslosky as modified by Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the detection information includes a detection frame indicating the detected object. In related field of endeavor, Herman teaches wherein the detection information includes a detection frame indicating the detected object (Fig. 9 Item 39, [0033] “In order to improve visibility of object 38, a highlight frame 39 is overlain on vehicle image 24 surrounding the image data of object 38”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have further modified Weslosky and Matajira to include wherein the detection information includes a detection frame indicating the detected object as taught by Herman. Doing so would improve visibility of the object ([0033] “In order to improve visibility of object 38, a highlight frame 39 is overlain on vehicle image 24 surrounding the image data of object 38”).’
Regarding claim 19, the method claim 19 is similar in scope to the information processing device claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the method claim 20 is similar in scope to the information processing device claim 8, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weslosky and Matajira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al (US 11340700 B2, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 21, Weslosky and Matajira teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where distortion of the detected object on the display deviates from a determined threshold range. In related field of endeavor, Park teaches wherein the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where distortion of the detected object on the display deviates from a determined threshold range (Col 2 Line 33-37 “The situation of the object of interest may include a situation in which any one or any combination of any two or more of occlusion, blur, distortion caused by rain, low illumination, and light reflection occurs with respect to the object of interest in the image sequence.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified
Weslosky and Matajira to include the case that the detected object satisfies the condition includes a case where distortion of the detected object on the display deviates from a determined threshold range as taught by Park. Doing so would allow distortions to be detected for image correction (Col 18 Line 2-7 “The augmentation apparatus may output the output image 1040 restored from the input image 1030 by mixed rendering of the relevant information, that is, the image in which the silhouettes of the distorted lane and/or distorted objects are corrected to fix the distortions”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK GOCO whose telephone number is (571)272-5872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/J.P.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights