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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2024 and 07/12/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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: action plan formulation module, projection shape determination module, control information generation module in claim 1,2 and 6-8.
The corresponding structure of these modules disclosed in ¶[0045] of the publication of the specification is a CPU
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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iino et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210006713 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Iino teaches an image processing device(Fig. 1) comprising: an action plan formulation module(this module is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure disclosed in ¶[0045] of the specification is a CPU. The cited prior art discloses a CPU to perform the tasks of image processing in ¶[0038]) configured to generate, based on action plan information of a moving body, first information including planned self-position information indicating a planned self-position of the moving body and position information of a peripheral three-dimensional object based on the planned self-position information (¶[0083], “the determiner 221 starts to acquire information on the distance to an object (in this example, a vehicle) present on the left and right sides of the planned parking space (step S1). That is, during the movement of the observing vehicle 5 prior to completion of parking of the observing vehicle 5, the determiner 221 starts to collect information for determining a combination pattern. This permits prompt display of a composite image CP at the parking completion scene on the display device 3 on completion of parking.”
[0083] “The determiner 221 acquires the planned parking space from the parking ECU 4. The determiner 221 can start to acquire information on the distance to an object in response to, instead of a notification of the start of autonomous parking from the parking ECU 4, for example, an operation on the shift lever.”, ¶[0082]-¶[0083] disclose determining action plan for parking a vehicle by acquiring distances of vehicles between the space and the operating vehicle.); and a projection shape determination module(this module is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure disclosed in ¶[0045] of the specification is a CPU. The cited prior art discloses a CPU to perform the tasks of image processing in ¶[0038]) configured to determine, based on the first information([0050] “By the front camera 11, the left-side camera 12, the right-side camera 13, and the rear camera 14, four shot images that are images in the front, left, right, and rear directions, respectively, relative to the observing vehicle 5 are acquired simultaneously. These four shot images P11 to P14 include the data of the surroundings all around the observing vehicle 5. The generator 222 acquires these four shot images P11 to P14.”
[0051] The generator 222 projects the data (values of pixels) contained in the four shot images P11 to P14 onto a projection surface TS in a virtual three-dimensional space. The projection surface TS is a virtual non-flat surface corresponding to a region around the observing vehicle 5. The projection surface TS has a hemispherical shape (the shape of a bowl or pan), and a central part of it (the part corresponding to the base of the bowl or pan) is defined as a vehicle region RO, which indicates the position of the observing vehicle 5.”, ¶[0050]-¶[0051] disclose using camera images to generate a projection surface of objects around the vehicle.)a shape of a projection surface on which a first image acquired by an imaging device mounted on the moving body is projected to generate a bird's-eye view image.
[0053] “The generator 222 allots the data of the shot image P11 of the front camera 11 to a part PF of the projection target region corresponding to the front side of the observing vehicle 5. The generator 222 allots the data of the shot image P12 of the rear camera 12 to a part PB of the projection target region corresponding to the rear side of the observing vehicle 5. The generator 222 allots the data of the shot image P13 of the left camera 13 to a part PL of the projection target region corresponding to the left side of the observing vehicle 5. The generator 222 allots the data of the shot image P14 of the right camera 14 to a part PR of the projection target region corresponding to the right side of the observing vehicle 5.”, ¶[0053] discloses using the camera images to generate a composite image of the surrounding area of the car. Figure 5 shows camera 12 pointing down on an object in order to generate a birds eye view of the objects to the left and right of the car. )
Regarding Claim 2, Iino teaches the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the action plan formulation module is configured to generate the first information based on second information and the action plan information, the second information including position information of a peripheral three-dimensional object of the moving body and position information of the moving body. (¶[0040], “the determiner 221 determines one out of a plurality of combination patterns as to the presence or absence of an object in a plurality of predetermined regions around the mobile body. More specifically, at a particular scene, the determiner 221 determines one out of a plurality of combination patterns as to the presence or absence of an object in a plurality of predetermined regions around the observing vehicle 5.”, ¶[0040] discloses the determining the presence of objects nearby the vehicle when planning to park the vehicle in a parking space.)
Regarding Claim 7, Iino teaches the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the projection shape determination module (this module is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure disclosed in ¶[0045] of the specification is a CPU. The cited prior art discloses a CPU to perform the tasks of image processing in ¶[0038])is configured to determine the shape of the projection surface based on distance information between position information of the peripheral three-dimensional object and the planned self-position. ([0097] FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating the plurality of projection surfaces in the modified example. FIG. 11 is a vertical sectional view of the projection surfaces as cut at the middle position along the front-rear axis. For the sake of convenience, FIG. 11 shows the observing vehicle 5 as well to make it easy to grasp the vehicle region RO.
[0098] In the modified example, as shown in FIG. 11, the plurality of projection surfaces include a projection surface TS1A for the first pattern and a shared projection surface TS4A selected for the second, third, and fourth patterns. The projection surface TS1A for the first pattern shown at (a) in FIG. 11 has the same shape as the projection surface TS1 for the first pattern shown at (a) in FIG. 8 referred to earlier.”, as disclosed in ¶[0097]-[0098], the prior art determines the projection surface by using the distance data obtained from the sensors and shown in figure 11 d1 is the distance in which the projection of the car is determined for proper assisted parking.
Regarding Claim 9, claim 9 is considered a method claim substantially corresponding to claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above for a discussion of similar limitations. Furthermore, Iino teaches an image processing method executed by a computer (See, ¶[0112])
Regarding Claim 10, claim 10 is considered a computer medium claim substantially corresponding to claim 1. Please see the discussion of claim 1 above for a discussion of similar limitations. Furthermore, Iino teaches a computer program product including programmed instructions embodied in and stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium(See, ¶[0038]), the instructions, when executed by a computer(See, ¶[0038), causing the computer to perform(See, ¶[0038)
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iino et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210006713 A1) in view of Iwama et al. US PG-Pub(US 20180246515 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, while Iino teaches the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the second information includes information generated by VSLAM processing using a second image around the moving body.
Iwama teaches wherein the second information includes information generated by VSLAM processing using a second image around the moving body. (¶[0078], ”The 3D model generation module 303 generates a 3D model from captured images by 3D reconstruction techniques such as SFM (structure from motion) and VSLAM (visual simultaneous localization and mapping)”, ¶[0078] discloses using VSLAM processing on captured images to generate information around the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Iino with Iwama in order to incorporate VSLAM processing. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Iino in this manner in order to have a path planning method for automatically parking a vehicle into a target space. (Iwama, ¶[0001])
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Iino and Iwama teach the image processing device according to claim 3, where Iino further teaches wherein the first image includes an image different from the second image. (¶[0037] discloses the image acquirer acquires images from 4 different cameras which would mean the images would all be different from each other.)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Iino and Iwama teach the image processing device according to claim 2, where Iwama further teaches wherein the second information includes information generated by SLAM processing using data acquired from at least one external sensor(¶[0072] “The system 100 can include sensors for capturing an image of a scene, such as cameras 124, 3D sensors, and/or combinations of cameras and 3D sensors, referred to as red-green-blue-depth (RGBD) sensors (not shown) and may optionally include motion sensors 121, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, electronic compass, or other similar motion sensing elements. The system 100 can also capture images on a front and/or rear-facing camera (e.g., cameras 124).”, ¶[0072] discloses using multiple sensors to capture information for processing.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Iino with Iwama in order to take external sensor data and process it with VSLAM. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Iino in this manner in order to have a path planning method for automatically parking a vehicle into a target space. (Iwama, ¶[0001])
Regarding Claim 6, while Iino teaches the image processing device according to claim 2,
Iino does not explicitly teach further comprising a control information generation module configured to generate third information concerning control of the moving body based on the action plan information of the moving body and the second information, wherein the moving body is controlled based on the third information.
Iwama teaches further comprising a control information generation module(this module is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure disclosed in ¶[0045] of the specification is a CPU. The cited prior art discloses a CPU to perform the tasks of image processing in ¶[0015]) configured to generate third information concerning control of the moving body based on the action plan information of the moving body and the second information, wherein the moving body is controlled based on the third information. (¶[0076] “In the auto-parking mode, the perception and planning unit 202 can extract image features from captured images, match the current image features to the image features in the reference data memorized in the learning mode, and localize the vehicle with respect to the 3D model by the matching results. The unit 202 can also determine the path to the target parking space from the current vehicle location and output the planned path to the vehicle control unit 203. The vehicle control unit 203 controls the vehicle based on the path input from the unit 202.”, ¶[0076] discloses using a controller to control the vehicle based on the path input from the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Iino with Iwama in order to control the vehicle based on the action plan decided. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Iino in this manner in order to have a path planning method for automatically parking a vehicle into a target space. (Iwama, ¶[0001])
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iino et al. US PG-Pub(US 20210006713 A1) in view of Pryke et al. US PG-Pub(US 20220105869 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, while Iino teaches the image processing device according to claim 7, Iino does not explicitly teach wherein the projection shape determination module is configured to determine the shape of the projection surface based on the peripheral three-dimensional object at a position closest to the planned self-position of the moving body.
Pryke teaches wherein the projection shape determination module (this module is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the corresponding structure disclosed in ¶[0045] of the specification is a CPU. The cited prior art discloses a CPU to perform the tasks of image processing in ¶[0043])is configured to determine the shape of the projection surface based on the peripheral three-dimensional object at a position closest to the planned self-position of the moving body. (¶[0045]. “Sensors 104 are configured to capture object data indicative of the presence of at least one object in a vicinity of the vehicle 200. In this embodiment, the sensors 104 are configured to capture object data indicative of objects 108, 110 and 112 around the vehicle 200. The object data may be indicative of a width of each of the objects, a height of each of the objects, a distance between each of the objects and the vehicle 200, and the like. Objects 108, 100, 112 may be one or more people, bollards, walls, or any other object.”
[0046] “The processor 102 is configured to receive the object data indicative of the presence of one or more objects in the vicinity of the vehicle from the sensors 104. The processor is configured to aggregate the captured object data to determine, in dependence on the aggregated data, one or more geometrical parameters of a virtual projection surface onto which the image texture can be mapped (this aggregation and determination of geometrical parameter(s) is described below in more detail). By modifying the geometrical parameters of the virtual projection surface based on the one or more objects whose presence is detected by the sensors 104, distortion of the vehicle environment can thus be reduced in any resulting image”
¶[0044] discloses using sensors to capture objects that are closeby to the vehicle and ¶[0045] discloses determining a virtual projection surface based on the objects close by the vehicle.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claimed invention as taught by Iino with Pryke in order to determine objects that are close by when generating a virtual projection surface. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Iino in this manner in order to generate a virtual projection surface for use in displaying an image of a surroundings of a vehicle. (Pryke, ¶[0001])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kogure et al. US PG-Pub(US 20200156625 A1) disclose a parking control device and method in the abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, JOHN M VILLECCO can be reached at 571-272-7319. 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.
/HAN HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights