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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 7 each recites “that of the first image” in line 7. It is disputable as to what “that” refers to. For the prior art purposes, “that of the first image” has been interpreted as “the viewpoint position of the first image.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
image information acquisition unit in claims 1 and 20;
ground feature position identification unit in claims 1 and 20; and
ground feature position information output unit in claims 1 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 2, 4, 8, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Us patent application publication no. 2018/0288320 to Melick et al. (hereinafter Melick) in view of Us patent application publication no. 2023/0068299 to Kikukawa et al. (hereinafter Kikukawa).
For claims 1 and 19, Melick as applied teaches a ground feature position information output device (see, e.g., pars. 50-54 and FIGS. 1 and 9) comprising:
an image information acquisition unit which acquires a plurality of images from a plurality of viewpoints different from each other on a roadway and first information indicating respective viewpoint positions and viewing directions of the plurality of images (see, e.g., pars. 68-81 and 94 and FIGS. 1-4 and 6-7, which teach acquiring a plurality of images from a plurality of different viewpoints on a roadway);
a ground feature position identification unit which, based on a difference in states of figures of a ground feature in each of the plurality of images and the respective viewpoint positions and viewing directions of the plurality of images identified from the first information, identifies a position of the ground feature (see, e.g., pars. 40-43, 58-64, 71, 80, 90, and 94-96 and FIGS. 1 and 6-7, which teach localizing the object based on a difference in states of figures of the object between the first and second images); and
a ground feature position information output unit which outputs information indicating the position of the ground feature identified by the ground feature position identification unit (see, e.g., pars. 40-43, 58-64 and 94-96 and FIGS. 1 and 7, which teach localizing the object based on a difference in states of figures of the object between the first and second images); and
a ground feature position information output unit which outputs information indicating the position of the ground feature identified by the ground feature position identification unit (see, e.g., pars. 63-66, which teach outputting the state data including the position of the object to the prediction and motion planning system).
While Melick teaches defining and storing parameters related to the camera placement and orientation and performing triangulation for localization (see, e.g., pars. 40, 58, 71, 80, and 90), it does not explicitly teach using such parameters in the triangulation operation of localization. Kikukawa in the analogous art explicitly teaches using the information regarding the viewpoints of the captured images, e.g., the positions and orientations in a triangulation operation to localize a feature in the images (see, e.g., pars. 111, 112, 121, and 142 and FIGS. 12 and 21 of Kikukawa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melick to use the viewpoint and viewing direction information as taught by Kikukawa because doing so would provide a highly accurate way of determining a position of an object (see pars. 73-74 and 123-124 of Kikukawa).
For claim 2, Melick as applied teaches that the ground feature position identification unit, based on whether the figure of the ground feature is included in each of the plurality of images, and the respective viewpoint positions and viewing directions of the plurality of images identified from the first information, identifies the position of the ground feature (see, e.g., pars. 94-96 and FIGS. 1 and 7, which teach determining whether the images contain, at least partially, the potential object of interest before localizing the object).
While Melick teaches defining and storing parameters related to the camera placement and orientation and performing triangulation for localization (see, e.g., pars. 40, 58, 71, 80, and 90), it does not explicitly teach using such parameters in the triangulation operation of localization. Kikukawa in the analogous art explicitly teaches using the information regarding the viewpoints of the captured images, e.g., the positions and orientations in a triangulation operation to localize a feature in the images (see, e.g., pars. 111, 112, 121, and 142 and FIGS. 12 and 21 of Kikukawa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melick to use the viewpoint and viewing direction information as taught by Kikukawa because doing so would provide a highly accurate way of determining a position of an object (see pars. 73-74 and 123-124 of Kikukawa).
For claim 4, Melick in view of Kikukawa teaches that the ground feature position identification unit:
identifies the position of the ground feature from a plurality of first images having a first viewing direction among the plurality of images (see, e.g., pars. 94-96 and FIG. 7 of Melick, which teach identifying the position of the object in the first image); and
when the figure of the ground feature is included in a second image having a second viewing direction different from the first viewing direction, based on a viewpoint position of the second image and the position of the ground feature identified from the plurality of first images, corrects the position of the ground feature (see, e.g., pars. 94-96 and FIG. 7 of Melick, which teach when the first image does not provide sufficient data for accurate localization, the more full view of the object provided in the second image allows for the accurate localization of the object of interest).
For claim 8, Melick in view of Kikukawa teaches that the ground feature position identification unit:
identifies the position of the ground feature from a plurality of first images having a first viewing direction among the plurality of images (see, e.g., pars. 94-96 and FIG. 7, which teach identifying the position of the object in the first image); and
when the figure of the ground feature is included in a second image having a second viewing direction different from the first viewing direction, based on a viewpoint position of the second image and the position of the ground feature identified from the plurality of first images, corrects the position of the ground feature (see, e.g., pars. 94-96 and FIG. 7, which teach when the first image does not provide sufficient data for accurate localization, the more full view of the object provided in the second image allows for the accurate localization of the object of interest).
For claim 20, Melick as applied teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein a program (see, e.g., pars. 52, 67 and 101 and FIGS. 1 and 9), the program causes a computer to function as:
an image information acquisition unit which acquires a plurality of images from a plurality of viewpoints different from each other on a roadway and first information indicating respective viewpoint positions and viewing directions of the plurality of images (see, e.g., pars. 68-81 and 94 and FIGS. 1-4 and 6-7, which teach acquiring a plurality of images from a plurality of different viewpoints on a roadway);
a ground feature position identification unit which, based on a difference in states of figures of a ground feature in each of the plurality of images and the respective viewpoint positions and viewing directions of the plurality of images identified from the first information, identifies a position of the ground feature (see, e.g., pars. 40-43, 58-64, 71, 80, 90 and 94-96 and FIGS. 1 and 6-7, which teach localizing the object based on a difference in states of figures of the object between the first and second images); and
a ground feature position information output unit which outputs information indicating the position of the ground feature identified by the ground feature position identification unit (see, e.g., pars. 63-66, which teach outputting the state data including the position of the object to the prediction and motion planning system).
While Melick teaches defining and storing parameters related to the camera placement and orientation and performing triangulation for localization (see, e.g., pars. 40, 58, 71, 80, and 90), it does not explicitly teach using such parameters in the triangulation operation of localization. Kikukawa in the analogous art explicitly teaches using the information regarding the viewpoints of the captured images, e.g., the positions and orientations in a triangulation operation to localize a feature in the images (see, e.g., pars. 111, 112, 121, and 142 and FIGS. 12 and 21 of Kikukawa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melick to use the viewpoint and viewing direction information as taught by Kikukawa because doing so would provide a highly accurate way of determining a position of an object (see pars. 73-74 and 123-124 of Kikukawa).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melick in view of Kikukawa and further in view of Us patent application publication no. 2022/0053124 to Zhou.
For claim 6, while Melick in view of Kikukawa does not explicitly teach, Zhou in the analogous art teaches that the ground feature comprises a pedestrian bridge, a vehicle stop line, a crosswalk, and/or a road sign (see, e.g., pars. 33 and 75 and FIGS. 10A-B of Zhou).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melick in view of Zhou to detect objects such as a stop sign taught by Kikukawa because doing so would constitute a simple substitution of one object type to another in localization of objects that may be found in the road (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
For claim 12, while Melick in view of Kikukawa does not explicitly teach, Zhou in the analogous art teaches that the ground feature comprises a pedestrian bridge, a vehicle stop line, a crosswalk, and/or a road sign (see, e.g., pars. 33 and 75 and FIGS. 10A-B of Zhou).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Melick in view of Zhou to detect objects such as a stop sign taught by Kikukawa because doing so would constitute a simple substitution of one object type to another in localization of objects that may be found in the road (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 are 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.
In regard to claims 3 and 7, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“wherein when a figure of a first ground feature is included in a first image among the plurality of images and the figure of the ground feature is not included in a second image among the plurality of images,
the ground feature position identification unit identifies a range between a viewpoint position of the first image and a viewpoint position of the second image as the position of the ground feature, and
the viewpoint position of the second image is different from that of the first image and the second image has a viewing direction wherein a difference between the viewpoint direction and a viewing direction of the first image is less than a predetermined value.”
In regard to claim 13, it depends on objected claim 3. Therefore, by virtue of its dependency, claim 13 is also indicated as objected subject matter.
In regard to claims 5, 9, 10, and 11, when considered as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“wherein the ground feature position identification unit:
identifies a first position as the position of the ground feature from a plurality of first images having a first viewing direction among the plurality of images;
identifies a third position as the position of the ground feature from a plurality of third images having a third viewing direction opposite to the first viewing direction among the plurality of images; and
based on the first position and the third position, identifies the position of the ground feature.”
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Kniffen et al. (us pat. pub. 2018/0255211)
Describes a system for providing a geographical location for a detected moving object. In one embodiment, the system comprises a camera configured to capture a first image of a field of view at a first time, and a second image of a field of view at a second time. The field of view includes a moving object. The system also comprises a processor configured to receive the first and second images of the field of view, index the first and second images based on an associated timestamp, and provide the first and second images to a nonvolatile storage medium. The system also comprises a change detection module configured to compare the first and second images and detect the moving object. The system also comprises a position identification module configured to calculate and provide the geographical location for the detected moving object, based on a known location of the camera, and a calibration of the field of view. The system also comprises a display, configured to receive an updated display feed from the processor. The updated display feed comprises the second image, an indication of the detected moving object, and an indication of a location of the detected moving object.
Tanaka et al. (us pat. pub. 2023/0316539)
Describes a feature detection device. In one embodiment, the device includes a processor configured to determine whether a vehicle is parked, based on at least one of the speed, steering angle, and shifter position of the vehicle; detect one or more predetermined features from a first image representing a first area around the vehicle in a section of road in which the vehicle is traveling, the first image being generated by a first camera provided on the vehicle, and detect the one or more predetermined features from a second image representing a second area closer to the vehicle than the first area in a section of road in which the vehicle is parked, the second image being generated by a second camera provided on the vehicle.
Um et al. (us pat. pub. 2016/0227128)
Describes a multi-camera control apparatus and method to maintain a location and a size of an object in a continuous viewpoint switching service. In one embodiment, the multi-camera control method of controlling a main camera configured to capture a moving object of interest and controlling at least one sub-camera configured to capture the object of interest at a different viewpoint from that of the main camera, may include extracting the object of interest from a first image generated by the main camera, controlling a capturing scheme of the main camera based on a change in a location and a size of the extracted object of interest, projecting the object of interest onto a second image generated by the sub-camera, and controlling a capturing scheme of the sub-camera based on a change in a location and a size of the projected object of interest.
Table 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892 and Table 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights