CTNF 18/752,456 CTNF 99729 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species: Species I (claims 10 – 12), Fig. 8; Paragraph [0063 – 0070] , drawn to a vehicle control system for controlling a vehicle based on a position(s) of the vehicle in an acquired video, wherein the plurality of vehicle positions are based on a video acquired by an “infrastructure” common camera. Specifically, the infrastructure camera(s) is defined as being “one or more cameras CAM are installed on the road from the assembly factory to the yard.”, Paragraph [0012] of the Specification, which correlates to the “Fifth” embodiment. Species II (in which currently no specific claims are directed), Fig. 10; Paragraph [0071 – 0074] , drawn to a vehicle control system for controlling a vehicle based on a position(s) of the vehicle in an acquired video, wherein the plurality of vehicle positions are based on a video acquired by a common camera. Specifically, the common camera is defined as being “an in-vehicle camera mounted on the vehicle 1”, Paragraph [0071] of the Specification, which correlates to the “Sixth” embodiment. Claims 1 – 9 and 13 are generic to the above disclosed patentably distinct species. The species are independent or distinct because in Paragraph [0075] of the Specification, it states “The first to sixth embodiments is described above. Of these, the fifth embodiment is limited to a case where the camera CAM is an infrastructure camera and cannot be combined with the sixth embodiment. However, two or more of the other embodiments can be arbitrarily combined.” In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Per MPEP 818.02(a), this is considered an election by original presentation: “The claims originally presented and acted upon by the Office on their merits determine the invention elected by an applicant in the application, and in any request for continued examination (RCE) filed for the application. Subsequently presented claims to an invention other than that acted upon should be treated as provided in MPEP § 821.03.” Ne restriction is being mailed as no claims specific to Species II were presented. See 37 CFR 1.142(a). Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141. The IDS filed 24 June 2024 has been received and considered. Claims 1 – 13 are pending . Claims 7 – 9 and 12 have been objected to. Claims 1 – 6 , 10 – 11 , and 13 , all of the remaining claims pending in this application, have been rejected . Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites the following claim language “ cancel stopping the vehicle when the calculation impossible state is resolved before continuing for a predetermined period .”. It is unclear as to what is being articulated in “… before continuing for a predetermined period.”; i.e. is the interpretation supposed to be before continuation of stopping of the vehicle or is it before continued movement of the vehicle for a predetermined period? Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Publication No. 2021081961 A to TANAKA et al. (hereinafter TANAKA) in view of Non-Patent Literature “3D Detection and Pose Estimation of Vehicle in Cooperative Vehicle Infrastructure System” to Guo et al. (hereinafter Guo) . Examiner notes the use of a translated version of application “ 961 ” to TANAKA hereinafter called Translated Document 1 as reference for the following rejections. Claim 1 Regarding claim 1 , an independent system claim, TANAKA teaches a vehicle control system for controlling a vehicle (Abstract) , comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire a video captured by a common camera ("Further, using the infrastructure equipment including the surveillance camera 103 and the analysis device (computer device that performs various image processing on the images captured by the surveillance camera 103), the control device 101 uses the image processing result (estimated vehicle position, etc. ) from the infrastructure equipment. ) May be obtained. In that case, the infrastructure equipment can be interpreted as a part of the control system in a broad sense.", Translated Document 1, lines 460 - 465) ; calculate a first vehicle position that is a position of the vehicle from the video based on a first position estimation algorithm (Rejected as applied directly above) ; calculate a second vehicle position that is a position of the vehicle from the video based on a second position estimation algorithm (Further, the acquisition unit 512 acquires a second position indicating the position of the vehicle estimated by the estimation unit 524 (second estimation unit) provided on the vehicle from the vehicle. Specifically, the vehicle estimation unit 524 estimates the second position, and the second position is sent from the estimation unit 524 to the acquisition unit 512 via the communication control unit 521 and the communication control unit 511. .. In the present embodiment, the position of the vehicle may include the direction (direction) of the vehicle (details will be described later).", Translated Document 1, lines 275 - 281) . Examiner note: Examiner is interpreting the acquisition of the video and the two estimations algorithms to be of the same camera based on the specification and the drawings filed. Therefore, while TANAKA teaches the estimation of a vehicle position from a first and second position estimation algorithm…both estimation algorithms as being that of the same camera is not explicitly taught. However, Guo teaches multiple estimation algorithms being used by the same infrastructure camera for accurate vehicle position throughout the continuous surveillance of a vehicle in the image (Figures 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12; "In this paper, we propose a monocular 3D object detection method without the use of 3D labels. We first propose a general K-means-like method to estimate the pose and dimensions of the vehicle. Then, we develop the maximum a posteriori estimation to improve the K-means-like method given 2D detection.", Conclusion; Also, all parts included in Section III. The Proposed Method) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of TANAKA to incorporate both vehicle position estimation algorithms being integrated into a single monocular infrastructure camera, as disclosed by Guo . The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow a vehicle to be controlled by a system, separate from the vehicle, like in a structure designed for automated parking for autonomous vehicles. TANAKA, in view of Guo , further teaches decelerate or stop the vehicle according to a deviation state in which a position difference between the first vehicle position and the second vehicle position exceeds an allowable error ("The calibration control unit 516 causes one of the estimation unit 515 and the estimation unit 524 to perform calibration (calibration) based on the comparison result of the first position and the second position. For example, the calibration control unit 516 causes the estimation unit 515 to perform calibration with the second position as positive based on the comparison result between the first position and the second position . In that case, for example, the calibration control unit 516 sets the second position as positive, the difference between the first position and the second position on the coordinates representing the inside of the parking lot P, and the first position and the second position. The estimation unit 515 is made to perform calibration using at least one of the differences in the moving directions of the positions of.", Translated Document 1, lines 310 - 319; "The calibration execution timing may be, for example, a timing instructed by the administrator of the control device 101 or a periodic timing. Alternatively, there may be a case where there is a difference of a predetermined value or more between the first position and the second position (hereinafter, also referred to as “both”). More specifically, for example, even when the distance between the two positions is greater than or equal to the predetermined distance threshold value, or when the rate of increase in the distance between the two positions is greater than or equal to the predetermined increase rate threshold value. Good. Further, not only the positions of the two but also the directions of the two may be compared, and the execution timing of the calibration may be determined based on the comparison result of the two.", Translated Document 1, lines 320 - 329; "The vehicle control unit 517 controls to stop or decelerate the vehicle via the braking system 401 when an abnormality occurs in the automatic valley parking system.", Translated Document 1, lines 332 - 333) . Claim 2 Regarding claim 2 , dependent on claim 1 , TANAKA , in view of Guo , teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 . TANAKA further teaches wherein an environment parameter is a width of a lane in which the vehicle is present or a distance between the vehicle and an obstacle around the vehicle ("The obstacle sensor 405 is a device for detecting information about obstacles that may exist around the vehicle V. The obstacle sensor 405 includes a distance measuring sensor such as a sonar that detects a distance to an obstacle. The obstacle sensor 405 outputs the detected information to the in-vehicle network 450.", Translated Document 1, lines 170 - 173) . TANAKA does not teach the processing circuitry is further configured to increase the allowable error as the environment parameter increases. However, Guo further teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to increase the allowable error as the environment parameter increases ("The accuracy of the depth estimation is evaluated on 5 depth intervals. As the distance increases, the relative error of the vehicle distance estimated by the K-means-like method and the MAP method increases.", Section IV. Experimental Result - Part E: Vehicle-End System Experimental Evaluation) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of TANAKA ¸ in view of Guo , to incorporate increasing an acceptable error as the distance increases, as disclosed by Guo . The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been because the accuracy of object detection used for detecting vehicle’s position or objects around a vehicle will diminish with distance from the sensor. Claim 3 Regarding claim 3 , dependent on claim 1 , TANAKA , in view of Guo , teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 . TANAKA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to decelerate the vehicle when the deviation state is detected or when detection of the deviation state continues for a predetermined period ("The vehicle control unit 517 controls to stop or decelerate the vehicle via the braking system 401 when an abnormality occurs in the automatic valley parking system.", Translated Document 1, lines 332 - 333) . Claim 4 Regarding claim 4 , dependent on claim 1 , TANAKA , in view of Guo , teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 . TANAKA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: start deceleration of the vehicle when the deviation state is detected (Rejected as applied to claim 3) ; stop the vehicle when detection of the deviation state continues for a predetermined period (Rejected as applied to claim 3) , where it is implicit to one skilled in the art to program a vehicle controller to stop a vehicle if a problem/anomaly or an "error" is detected ; and cancel the deceleration of the vehicle when the detection of the deviation state is resolved before continuing for the predetermined period (Rejected as applied to claim 3) , where it is implicit to one skilled in the art to program a vehicle controller to continue normal operations if a problem/anomaly or an "error" is resolved . Claim 5 Regarding claim 5 , dependent on claim 1 , TANAKA , in view of Guo , teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 . TANAKA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: stop the vehicle when the deviation state is detected (Rejected as applied to claim 3) ; notify an administrator of the vehicle or switch the vehicle to remote driving when detection of the deviation state continues for a predetermined period ("The notification unit 518 notifies the target person (for example, a staff member of the control device 101) of an alarm (for example, notification by voice or display) when an abnormality occurs in the automatic valley parking system.", Translated Document 1, lines 334 - 336) ; and cancel stopping the vehicle when the detection of the deviation state is resolved before continuing for the predetermined period (Rejected as applied to claim 3) , where it is implicit to one skilled in the art to program a vehicle controller to continue normal operations if a problem/anomaly or an "error" is resolved . Claim 6 Regarding claim 6 , dependent on claim 1 , TANAKA , in view of Guo , teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 . TANAKA further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: stop the vehicle when a calculation impossible state in which either the first vehicle position or the second vehicle position cannot be calculated is detected (Rejected as applied to claim 3) , where it is implicit that in a system that is programmed to control a vehicle based on a comparison between a two position estimation algorithms, that an output from both algorithms would be needed for the system to function or control the vehicle properly. Failure to acquire both estimations would be an "anomaly" in which deceleration or stopping of the vehicle would be performed as explicitly taught by TANAKA . Claim 10 Regarding claim 10 , dependent on claim 1 , TANAKA , in view of Guo , teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 . TANAKA , in view of Guo , further teaches wherein the common camera is an infrastructure camera outside the vehicle (Rejected as applied to claim 1) , and the vehicle is shown in the video (Rejected as applied to claim 1) . Claim 13 , an independent method claim, is rejected for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Publication No. 2021081961 A to TANAKA et al. (hereinafter TANAKA) in view of Non-Patent Literature “3D Detection and Pose Estimation of Vehicle in Cooperative Vehicle Infrastructure System” to Guo et al. (hereinafter Guo) in further view of JP Publication No. 2022129103 A to GOTO et al. (hereinafter GOTO) . Examiner notes the use of a translated version of application “ 103 ” to GOTO hereinafter called Translated Document 2 as reference for the following rejections. Claim 11 Regarding claim 11 , dependent on claim 10 , TANAKA , in view of Guo , teaches the invention as claimed in claim 10 . Neither TANAKA , or Guo , or the combination teach wherein the common camera includes a first common infrastructure camera and a second common infrastructure camera installed at a position where the second common infrastructure camera captures the vehicle after the first common infrastructure camera. However, GOTO teaches wherein the common camera includes a first common infrastructure camera and a second common infrastructure camera installed at a position where the second common infrastructure camera captures the vehicle after the first common infrastructure camera (Figure 4; "Results of vehicle detection in the vehicle detection unit 52 (for example, when YOLOv3 is used for vehicle detection, detection rectangle information and detection score information, when Gaussian YOLOv3 is used, detection rectangle, detection score, and detection uncertainty information) and the information of the vehicle position on the map coordinates measured by the position measuring unit 54 are output to the object detection accuracy estimation device. In addition, information on the vehicle position detected from the image of the infrastructure camera 40 (measured by the position measurement unit 54) is output to the environment map generation device 80. FIG. The object detection device 50 determines the position of the vehicle 200 from each image acquired by the plurality of infrastructure cameras 40 installed in the control area 44 where the control system 100 controls the vehicle 200. However, the field of view of the infrastructure camera 40 ( The same vehicle 200 may be detected by different infrastructure cameras 40 in a portion where the photographing ranges overlap ." Translated Document 2, lines 164 - 176) , and PNG media_image1.png 352 634 media_image1.png Greyscale the processing circuitry is further configured to switch the common camera from the first common infrastructure camera to the second common infrastructure camera such that the common camera used for calculating the first vehicle position and the common camera used for calculating the second vehicle position coincide with each other (Rejected as applied directly above) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teachings of TANAKA ¸ in view of Guo , to incorporate the use of multiple infrastructure cameras which can be installed to have overlapping field-of-views for detecting a vehicle(s) and estimating the vehicle’s position, as disclosed by GOTO . The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to be able to continuously estimate a position of a vehicle being controlled using a gapless detection technique . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 7 and 12 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. Claims 8 and 9 have been objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 7 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ronde Miller whose telephone number is (703) 756-5686 The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00. 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 Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838 . 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. /RONDE LEE MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2663 /GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 2 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 3 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 4 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 5 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 6 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 7 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 8 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 9 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 10 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 11 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 12 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 13 Art Unit: 2663 Application/Control Number: 18/752,456 Page 14 Art Unit: 2663
Prosecution Insights