DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The reply filed on 7/13/2026 has been entered. Some of the applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection caused by the amendments.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are pending in this application and have been considered below. Claim 3 is canceled by the applicant.
The following applicant's argument filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument:
The applicant argues that Bangalore does not teach correcting the position of a lane line.
Response:
Bangalore shows the limitation “when detecting the ROI 603, road edge and/or lane marker detection may be performed at rows of pixels corresponding to every few meters or fractions of meters on the received image 602 for calculating the left and right lane boundaries at every pixel row of the entire image”. By calculating boundaries at every single pixel row of the image rather than skipping gaps, the system maintains continuous tracking and allows real-time adjustments to lane line positions. A continuous updating is interpreted as “correcting.”
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number JP2023-136170 dated 8/24/2023. Copies of certified papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 have been received. Priority is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 7/12/2024 has been considered and remain placed in the application file.
1st 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.
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 1, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2021 0303875 A1, (Bangalore et al.) in view of US Patent 12354287 B1, (Wang et al.).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Bangalore et al. teach an image processing apparatus comprising:
an estimation circuit configured to estimate, based on captured image data comprising an image of a lane line that defines a traveling road, a position of the lane line on a road surface of the traveling road ("based on the received left and right images 506 and 508, the system may execute the debris detection program 116 to generate additional images such as a lane information image 602 that includes lane information as indicated by a line 604. In some cases, road markers, a road edge, road size information, or the like, may be used to determine the lane information," par. 67) using a machine learning model; ("the vehicle control program 118 may apply one or more of the machine learning models 218 for determining an appropriate action," par. 46) and a correction circuit configured to correct the position of the lane line on the road surface of the traveling road estimated by the estimation circuit ("when detecting the ROI 603, road edge and/or lane marker detection may be performed at rows of pixels corresponding to every few meters or fractions of meters on the received image 602 for calculating the left and right lane boundaries at every pixel row of the entire image," par. 69).
Bangalore et al. do not explicitly teach all of a correction coefficient calculation circuit configured to calculate a correction coefficient based on a height position of an imager that has generated the captured image data with respect to the road surface of the traveling road and a reference height position; and based on the correction coefficient.
However, Wang et al. teach a correction coefficient calculation circuit configured to calculate a correction coefficient based on a height position of an imager that has generated the captured image data with respect to the road surface of the traveling road and a reference height position; ("obtaining a camera height and a camera pitch, constructing a relationship between a camera height and a camera pitch and a coordinate conversion error, calculating a coordinate conversion error according to the relationship between a camera height and a camera pitch," col. 11, line 51) and based on the correction coefficient ("calculating a target actual vehicle location based on the coordinate conversion error," col. 11, line 56).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Bangalore et al. and Wang et al. as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify lane information detection techniques as taught by Bangalore et al. to use a correction mechanism based on the camera height as taught by Wang et al. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “calculating a coordinate conversion error according to the relationship between a camera height and a camera pitch and a coordinate conversion error, and calculating a target actual vehicle location based on the coordinate conversion error, to obtain vehicle positioning coordinates; and position and track a location of the moving target in the video in the real world according to the obtained vehicle positioning coordinates” as noted by the Wang et al. disclosure in paragraph [73], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a greater accuracy as there is a reasonable expectation that adjusting the lane position estimate using the camera height would successfully reduce mounting height errors, normalize outputs across different vehicles, and improve the accuracy of road identification; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Bangalore et al. and teach Wang et al. teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above.
Bangalore et al. do not explicitly teach all of further comprising a storage circuit configured to store the height position of the imager, wherein the correction coefficient calculation circuit is configured to calculate the correction coefficient based on the height position of the imager stored in the storage circuit and the reference height position.
However, Wang et al. teach further comprising a storage circuit configured to store the height position of the imager, ("the modules or steps may be implemented by using program code executable by a computing apparatus, so that the modules or steps may be stored in a storage apparatus," col. 12, line 21) wherein the correction coefficient calculation circuit is configured to calculate the correction coefficient based on the height position of the imager stored in the storage circuit ("obtaining a camera height and a camera pitch, constructing a relationship between a camera height and a camera pitch and a coordinate conversion error, calculating a coordinate conversion error according to the relationship between a camera height and a camera pitch," col. 11, line 51) and the reference height position ("h is a height of the camera from the ground," col. 3, line 41).
Bangalore et al. and Wang et al. are combined as per claim 1.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Bangalore et al. and teach Wang et al. teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above.
Bangalore et al. teach wherein the reference height position is a height position of an imager that generated image data used in generating the machine learning model ("the mono camera may be used with one of the machine learning models 218 to determine a distance of any point in an image from the camera," par. 66) (“mono camera is used, a depth map may be calculated using a trained machine learning model,” par. 33).
Bangalore et al. and Wang et al. are combined as per claim 1.
2nd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2021 0303875 A1, (Bangalore et al.) and US Patent 12354287 B1, (Wang et al.) in view of US Patent 12493988 B1, (Shankar).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Bangalore et al. and teach Wang et al. teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above.
Bangalore et al. do not explicitly teach all of further comprising a height position detection circuit configured to detect the height position of the imager, based on the captured image data, wherein the correction coefficient calculation circuit is configured to calculate the correction coefficient based on the height position of the imager detected by the height position detection circuit and the reference height position.
However, Wang et al. teach wherein the correction coefficient calculation circuit is configured to calculate the correction coefficient based on the height position of the imager detected by the height position detection circuit ("obtaining a camera height and a camera pitch, constructing a relationship between a camera height and a camera pitch and a coordinate conversion error, calculating a coordinate conversion error according to the relationship between a camera height and a camera pitch," col. 11, line 51) and the reference height position ("h is a height of the camera from the ground," col. 3, line 41).
Additionally, Shankar teach further comprising a height position detection circuit configured to detect the height position of the imager, based on the captured image data ("The interface is configured to receive image data from a camera mounted on a vehicle. The processor is configured to determine a set of lane lines using the image, determine points for calculating height and offset of the camera using a pair of lane lines, and calculate the height and the offset of the camera using the points," col. 2, line 46).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Bangalore et al., Wang et al., and Shankar as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify lane information detection techniques as taught by Bangalore et al. and a correction mechanism based on the camera height as taught by Wang et al. to use the current camera height detection system as taught by Shankar. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “The system for calculating height and offset of a vehicle-mounted camera uses images received from a vehicle-mounted camera and analyzes the images to enable the calculations for height and offset. Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) use the parameters of vehicle height and offset during determinations of tailgating and lane crossings. Currently, these parameters are manually measured and fed into the system during installation on the vehicle as part of a calibration process for the device. However, not only does this calibration process introduce a lot of friction during installation leading to resistance to making accurate measurements or adopting the device, but also, in the event that the device is moved after installation, errors in ADAS determinations will develop as a result” as noted by the Shankar disclosure in paragraph [21], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a greater accuracy as there is a reasonable expectation that automatically calculating the camera height and offset using the combined image analysis techniques would eliminate manual calibration errors; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Bangalore et al., Wang et al., and Shankar teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 2 as noted above.
Bangalore et al. teach the captured image data comprises left image data and right image data ("Examples of inputs 402 may include left and/or right images," par. 62).
Bangalore et al. do not explicitly teach all of the height position detection circuit is configured to estimate the height position of the imager, based on the captured image data and distance image data that corresponds to the captured image data.
However, Shankar teach the height position detection circuit is configured to estimate the height position of the imager, based on the captured image data and distance image data that corresponds to the captured image data ("The interface is configured to receive image data from a camera mounted on a vehicle. The processor is configured to determine a set of lane lines using the image, determine points for calculating height and offset of the camera using a pair of lane lines, and calculate the height and the offset of the camera using the points," col. 2, line 46).
Bangalore et al., Wang et al., and Shankar are combined as per claim 2.
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Bangalore et al., Wang et al., and Shankar teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 2 as noted above.
Bangalore et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein the height position detection circuit is configured to estimate the height position of the imager, based on a result of detection by a distance sensor, the distance sensor being configured to detect a distance from the imager to a subject.
However, Shankar teach wherein the height position detection circuit is configured to estimate the height position of the imager, based on a result of detection by a distance sensor, the distance sensor being configured to detect a distance from the imager to a subject ("the sum of distance 612 and distance 614 can be substituted with the real-world lane width to solve for height in real-world units," col. 9, line 22).
Bangalore et al., Wang et al., and Shankar are combined as per claim 2.
3rd Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 2021 0303875 A1, (Bangalore et al.) and US Patent 12354287 B1, (Wang et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 2020 0218250 A1, (Fuke).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Bangalore et al. and teach Wang et al. teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 as noted above.
Bangalore et al. do not explicitly teach all of wherein the correction coefficient is a ratio of the height position of the imager to the reference height position.
However, Fuke teach wherein the correction coefficient is a ratio of the height position of the imager to the reference height position ("based on a ratio between the calculated image height and a reference image height calculated from viewing angles of the camera and the image sensor," par. 55).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Bangalore et al., Wang et al., and Shankar as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify lane information detection techniques as taught by Bangalore et al. and a correction mechanism based on the camera height as taught by Wang et al. to use the camera height and reference height ratio as taught by Fuke. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “In the third estimation method, the processor 2 can also calculate the image height of the vehicle included in the photographed image acquired in step S10, and can estimate the distance from the mobile terminal 10 to the vehicle 20 based on a ratio between the calculated image height and a reference image height calculated from viewing angles of the camera and the image sensor” as noted by the Fuke disclosure in paragraph [0055], which also motivates combination because the combination would predictably have a greater efficiency as there is a reasonable expectation that using the ratio between the calculated image height and the reference image height would accurately scale and correct the detected lane line positions under varying camera installation heights or viewing angles; and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karsten F. Lantz whose telephone number is (571)272-4564. 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, Ms. Jennifer Mehmood can be reached on 571-272-2976. 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.
/Karsten F. Lantz/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Date: 8/24/2026
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights