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 .
1. This application is acknowledged as a Continuation of S.N. 17/752483, now US Patent No. 12,036,979. Claims 1-20 are pending.
2. The IDS filed 6/26/24 has been considered. The cited documents were made of record in one or more of the parent applications.
3. 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.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are 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.
A. As per claim 7, the claim is unclear as to which vehicle (first or second) is being referred to or whether it is in reference to another unspecified vehicle.
B. As per claim 14, the claim is unclear as to which vehicle (first or second) is being referred to or whether it is in reference to another unspecified vehicle.
C. As per claim 20, the claim is unclear as to which vehicle (first or second) is being referred to or whether it is in reference to another unspecified vehicle.
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
4.1 Claims 1 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,338,807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim(s) is/are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference/patent claim(s). Taking application claim 1 as exemplary, the application claim is shown on the left and the reference claim (patent claim 1) is shown on the right with similar language underlined and differences in bold.
A computing platform, comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: receive, from a camera disposed in a first vehicle, image data capturing a second vehicle; determine, using one or more deep learning algorithms and the image data, a longitudinal distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; generate a distance estimation output using the longitudinal distance; and transmit, to a computing device, the distance estimation output to cause the computing device to generate a graphical user interface indicating the distance estimation output.
A computing platform, comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: receive, from a visible light camera located in a first vehicle, a video output containing video footage of a second vehicle, wherein the second vehicle is in front of the first vehicle; determine, using one or more deep learning algorithms, a longitudinal distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle by determining an orthogonal distance between: a center-of-projection corresponding to the visible light camera, and an intersection of a backside plane of the second vehicle and ground below the second vehicle, wherein using the one or more deep learning algorithms comprises: determining a bounding box that covers visible dimensions of the second vehicle, wherein the bounding box is used to determine the longitudinal distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; and send, to one or more of: a vehicle control system or a mobile device, a distance estimation output corresponding to the longitudinal distance, wherein {sending the distance estimation output causes one or more of: the vehicle control system to perform one or more vehicle control actions}, or the mobile device to cause display of a graphical user interface based on the distance estimation output.
In addition to the slight differences in wording between the claims, the claims differ insofar as the terms: image data vs. video footage; transmit vs. send; and computing device vs. mobile device. The different terms used are not patentably distinct from one another or at least obvious variants describing similar subject matter.
Thus, application claim 1 is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference/patent claim 1. Application claim 7 was similarly compared with reference/patent claim 1 and the common subject matter is shown above within { }.
4.2 Claims 1-3, 8-10, 13 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-11 and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,979. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim(s) is/are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference/patent claim(s).
Taking application claim 1 as exemplary, the application claim is shown on the left and the reference claim (patent claim 1) is shown on the right with similar language underlined and differences in bold.
A computing platform, comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: receive, from a camera disposed in a first vehicle, image data capturing a second vehicle; determine, using one or more deep learning algorithms and the image data, a longitudinal distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; generate a distance estimation output using the longitudinal distance; and transmit, to a computing device, the distance estimation output to cause the computing device to generate a graphical user interface indicating the distance estimation output.
A computing platform, comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to: receive, from a camera disposed in a first vehicle, image data capturing a second vehicle; determine, using one or more deep learning algorithms and the image data, a longitudinal distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle by determining an orthogonal distance between: a center-of-projection corresponding to the camera, and an intersection of a backside plane of the second vehicle and ground below the second vehicle; generate a distance estimation output using the longitudinal distance; and transmit, to a computing device, the distance estimation output to cause the computing device to generate a graphical user interface indicating the distance estimation output, the graphical user interface indicating a speed of the first vehicle.
As shown above, all of the elements of application claim 1 are included in reference/patent claim 1 and thus anticipated thereby. The remaining claims listed above were compared in a similar manner and correspond as follows (app/pat): 2/2,3; 3/4; 8/7; 9/8,9,10; 10/11; 13/7; 15/14; 16/15,16,17; 17/18.
5. 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.
6. 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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noda et al. (US 2018/0373942).
A. As per claim 1, Noda discloses:
A computing platform (Fig. 1), comprising:
at least one processor (10);
a communication interface (30,40) communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and
memory (20) storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing platform to [0020- processing functions executed by the object detecting apparatus 1 are stored in the memory circuit 20 in the form of a compute-executable computer program, for example. The processing circuit 10 is a processor for implementing a processing function corresponding to a computer program, by reading the computer program from the memory circuit 20 and executing the computer program]:
receive, from a camera (2) disposed in a first vehicle, image data capturing a second vehicle [0017- object detecting apparatus is provided onboard a vehicle. In such a configuration, examples of an object to be detected by the object detecting apparatus include obstacles, such as other vehicles (hereinafter, referred to as “another vehicle”) … object detecting apparatus acquires a captured image captured with a monocular camera mounted on the own-vehicle];
determine, using one or more deep learning algorithms and the image data, a longitudinal distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle [0035- a neural network that estimates … the distance to the object … neural network trained to estimate … the distance to the object … the “distance to the object” includes … the captured image captured by the onboard camera 2, and the actual distance to the object];
generate a distance estimation output using the longitudinal distance (Abs.- a neural network having been trained to estimate … the distance to the object … and output object information at least including information on the distance to the object, using an output from the neural network); and
transmit, to a computing device, the distance estimation output to cause the computing device to generate a graphical user interface (3- display) indicating the distance estimation output [0026- display device such as a liquid crystal display, and displays various types of information; 0058- the object information output from the non-linear processing function 13 may be used to display obstacle information onto the display 3 that is connected to the object detecting apparatus 1 … as illustrated in FIG. 11, an image 200 indicating the positions and the posture of the other vehicles V1, V2, V3 with respect to the own-vehicle V0 can be drawn and displayed on the display 3].
B. As per claims 8 and 15, as noted above for claim 1 whereby the functions performed by the computing platform are steps embodied as executable instructions stored on a computer-readable medium [0020- processing functions executed by the object detecting apparatus 1 are stored in the memory circuit 20 in the form of a compute-executable computer program, for example. The processing circuit 10 is a processor for implementing a processing function corresponding to a computer program, by reading the computer program from the memory circuit 20 and executing the computer program. The processing circuit 10 having read the computer programs obtains the functions illustrated in FIG. 1].
C. As per claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17, as noted above whereby Noda at least indicates the distance between the first and second vehicles [0058- the object information output from the non-linear processing function 13 may be used to display obstacle information onto the display 3 that is connected to the object detecting apparatus 1 … as illustrated in FIG. 11, an image 200 indicating the positions and the posture of the other vehicles V1, V2, V3 with respect to the own-vehicle V0 can be drawn and displayed on the display 3]. With regards to claims 3, 10 and 17, since Noda discloses at least one of the elements listed in the base claim (2, 9, and 16 respectively), these claims fail to further distinguish over the Noda reference and necessarily fall as well.
D. As per claims 6 and 13, as above whereby the images may be obtained by a personal computing device in the form of a camera that is part of a headgear device attached to an occupant’s head [0028- acquire the captured images from a monocular camera mounted on a headgear device] or from an on-board camera (Fig. 1:2) [0028- acquire the captured image from the onboard camera 2].
E. As per claims 7, 14 and 20, as above whereby the distance information may be used by vehicle control systems to perform various actions (Fig. 1:4) [0027- The vehicle control unit 4 controls the amount of acceleration, the amount of braking, and the steering angle in the own-vehicle. In the embodiment, the vehicle control unit 4 can control to avoid obstacles by estimating the behavior (relative movement) of the obstacles, positioned near the own-vehicle, with respect to the own-vehicle, using the object information output from the object detecting apparatus 1; 0057- can use the object information output from the non-linear processing function 13, to perform the vehicle control of the own-vehicle, for example. The vehicle control unit 4 includes a collision avoidance system, an automatic braking system, an adaptive cruise control system, and an automatic operation control system].
7. 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al. (US 2018/0373942) in view of Winner et al. (Adaptive Cruise Control System Aspects and Development Trends) and Lin et al. (US 2019/ 0001977).
A. As per claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19, Noda is applied as above whereby the estimated posture and distance of objects captured by the camera are used by various vehicle control systems such as collision avoidance, automatic braking, adaptive cruise control, and automatic operation control (Noda [0057]). The claimed invention determines additional parameters related to the first and/or second vehicle (relative speed between vehicles, absolute speed of first vehicle). However, as noted above Noda discloses using the disclosed object detecting apparatus in conjunction with known vehicle control systems which necessarily take into consideration relative speed between vehicles and speed of a host or ego vehicle. For example Winner describes various operating parameters used in performing adaptive cruise control (pg. 1412: distance and relative speed to
preceding vehicles) whereas Lin describes additional input data [0047- The modules 173 and 175 of the adaptive cruise control module 200 can receive the input object data 210 and produce the velocity command, V.sub.cmd, 220, which is the velocity at which a following vehicle (host vehicle) is commanded to drive, based on the distance and velocity of each proximate object from the input object data 210]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the vehicle control art prior to the effective filing date to process additional known operating parameters (as exemplified by Winner and Lin) in implementing the teachings of Noda in combination with known vehicle control systems, as suggested by Noda in paragraph [0057], with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would have enabled the object detecting apparatus of Noda to be paired with known vehicle control systems which require information about the movements of surrounding objects resulting in safer operation of a host vehicle.
B. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular,
• Lee et al. (US 2020/0118283)- discloses distance estimating method and apparatus (Fig. 8) for estimating the distance between a host vehicle and a preceding vehicle using an image sensor (camera); processor uses a trained neural network in processing the image data and determining the distance between the vehicles; the estimated distance may be used in vehicle systems such as adaptive cruise control.
• Stenborg et al. (EP 2405416)- adaptive cruise control which includes object detection means (i.e. one or more radar devices) arranged to emit and receive signals representative of object data, such as object distance, angle, speed/ velocity, and relative speed/velocity and camera means arranged in a forwards direction to retrieve image information from the surroundings in front of the vehicle.
• Christiansen et al. (Monocular Vehicle Distance Sensor Using HOG and Kalman Tracking)- monocular vision methods for application in automotive distance measuring; utilizes deep learning neural networks.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. ZANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-6969. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 9-4; Th 9-2.
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, Ramya P. Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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 J ZANELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661