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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/17/2026. Claims 2 and 7 have been cancelled, claim 17 has been newly added. Thus, claims 1, 3-6, and 8-17 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 filed in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, it is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1,14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding “a first region being a region associated with a sky in the photographed image,” the term “sky” is indefinite because the claim does not provide sufficient boundaries for determining what constitutes the sky in the photographed image. For example, it is unclear whether “sky” encompasses clear or blue sky, cloudy or foggy sky, partially occluded sky, or other regions having sky-like image characteristics. Further, the claim does not specify how the sky is distinguished from other portions of the photographed image. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed “first region” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding “a reference region in which a predetermined criterion is satisfied,” the term “predetermined criterion” is indefinite because the claim does not provide sufficient boundaries for determining what constitutes the predetermined criterion. For example, it is unclear whether the criterion is based on a threshold, pixel value, luminance, color, image position, or another image characteristic. Further, the claim does not specify how the criterion is applied to determine the reference region. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed “reference region” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding “the vehicle is present within a structure,” the term “structure” is indefinite because the claim does not provide sufficient boundaries for determining what constitutes the structure. For example, it is unclear whether “structure” encompasses a fully enclosed structure, a partially enclosed structure, a roofed or open-sided structure, or another type of structure. Further, the claim does not specify the degree of enclosure or other characteristics necessary for something to constitute the claimed structure. Accordingly, the scope of the claimed “structure” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Examiner’s Interpretation: For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “sky” broadly as a portion of the photographed image corresponding to the sky; “predetermined criterion” broadly as a predetermined condition used to determine the reference region; and “structure” broadly as a structure that surrounds or covers at least a portion of the vehicle, such as a tunnel or garage.
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 1, 3, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedajo et al. (US-20140184798-A1) hereinafter “Wedajo” in view of Nishimura et al (US-11458979-B2) hereinafter “Nishimura” in view of Fujita et al. (US-8310545-B2) hereinafter “Fujita” further in view of Bairamis (US-6108602-A) hereinafter “Bairamis”
Regarding Claim 1 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis
Wedajo disclose (previously presented): A travel environment decision apparatus (Wedajo, [0001] “The vehicle comprises a tunnel detection device designed…”) comprising:
. . .
acquire a photographed image captured by a photographing apparatus installed in a vehicle; (Wedajo, [0050] “In the upper part of a front screen of the vehicle 10 a camera 16 is arranged, which captures … image areas … of the surroundings of the vehicle 10….”)
perform analysis processing with respect to the photographed image, (Wedajo, [0052] “ The feature detection device 46 is capable of detecting features or edges in the image areas .. captured by the camera 16. These features are characterized by abrupt changes in brightness within the image areas …”)
Wedajo does not explicitly disclose
a memory configured to store instructions;
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
determine a first region being a region associated with a sky in the photographed image;
determine a reference region in which a predetermined criterion is satisfied in the photographed image: and
decide whether the vehicle is present within a structure, based on a ratio occupied by the first region in the reference region. and
However, in the same field of endeavor Nishimura discloses more explicitly the following:
a memory (Fig. 2 “Memory (RAM) 202, “storage device 204””) configured to store instructions; , (Nishimura, Col, 7, lines 43-45 “…a Random Access Memory (RAM) 202, a Read Only Memory (ROM) 203, a storage device 204,,,”) and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to: (Nishimura Col, 7, lines 42-51 “A computer 200 includes, for example, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 201 ….The CPU 201 is a computational device that reads out programs, data, or the like stored in the ROM 203, the storage device 204, or the like on the RAM 202 and executes processing to realize functions of the computer 200.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Wedajo with the teachings of Nishimura in order to include a memory configured to store instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions, as suggested by Nishimura.
Such modification would have been an obvious design choice because incorporating a memory and a processor for executing a stored instruction is a well-known and standard implementation, would have predictably improved the system’s reliability “to avoid an erroneous tunnel detection” (Wedajo, [0056])
Wedajo-Nishimura does not disclose
determine a first region being a region associated with a sky in the photographed image; determine a reference region in which a predetermined criterion is satisfied in the photographed image; and
decide whether the vehicle is present within a structure, based on a ratio occupied by the first region in the reference region.
However, in the same field of endeavor Fujita discloses more explicitly the following:
determine a first region being a region associated with a sky in the photographed image; (Fujita, Fig. 3 Col. 4, lines 23-29 “In the scene analysis processing in step S6, as shown in FIG. 6, a blue ratio in the upper area is analyzed (step S61). The number of pixels in a blue portion (including similar colors) in the upper area is extracted and a ratio of the number of pixels in the blue portion to a total number of pixels in the area is set as a blue ratio. The blue ratio is a ratio of a blue sky in the upper area.” See also Claim 11)
determine a reference region in which a predetermined criterion is satisfied in the photographed image; (Fujita, Claim 7 wherein said image dividing portion calculates a moving distance from an amount of change between the image of the view in front of the vehicle photographed by the camera and an image of a view in front of the vehicle photographed temporally earlier than the image and applies a threshold to the moving distance to obtain sectional areas of a scene area and a background area..”) and
. . . , based on a ratio occupied by the first region in the reference region. ( Fujita, claim 11 “…analyzing portion includes: a portion which detects a blue ratio of the image in the upper area to estimate a ratio of a blue sky; a portion which detects a color distribution of the image in the upper area to estimate a background main object; and a portion which measures a distance to the background main object.” See also the description corresponding to step S61, teaching that “the number of pixels in a blue portion (including similar colors) in the upper area is extracted and a ratio of the number of pixels in the blue portion to a total number of pixels in the area is set as a blue ratio.” wherein the blue ratio represents a blue sky in the upper area.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wedajo-Nishimura with Fujita to configure the system of Wedajo-Nishimura to determine a first region being a region associated with a sky in the photographed image; determine a reference region in which a predetermined criterion is satisfied; and determine whether the vehicle is present in structure based on a ratio occupied by the first region in the reference region, in order “ to obtain an accurate analysis result on a road view in front of the vehicle.” (Fujita, Col. 6, lines 1-2)
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita does not explicitly disclose
decide whether the vehicle is present within a structure,
However, in the same field of endeavor Bairamis discloses more explicitly the following:
decide whether the vehicle is present within a structure, (Bairamis, Col. 2, lines 16-35, “in conjunction with the ongoing determination of the position of the vehicle, when the vehicle is about to travel through such a covered road network area. As soon as this is the case during a trip, the navigation device transmits an appropriate message to a control unit which, in response, automatically actuates certain vehicle components in a tunnel-mode function in order to switch on the vehicle lights, close the vehicle openings, switch the air conditioning system to air recirculation mode and/or switch the audio system to recorded-medium mode. As a result, the vehicle automatically assumes the suitable operating state for travelling through the covered road network area, for example a tunnel, an underpass, a multi-story car park or an underground garage, without the driver of the vehicle having to pay attention himself to activating the tunnel-mode function. In this way, a particularly high level of operating convenience when travelling through such sections of road networks is obtained for vehicles with a navigation device and a tunnel-mode function.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Wedajo-Nishimura- Fujita with Bairamis to configure the system of Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita to determine whether the vehicle is present in structure in order to “ automatically implement a tunnel-mode in which a defined set of vehicle functions are operated; .” (Bairamis, Col. 6, lines 47-48)
Note: The motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 1, applies equally as well to claims 3, 12-15, and 17.
Regarding Claim 3 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis (previously presented) The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the reference region is a region above a position associated with a road in the
photographed image. (Wedajo, [0078] “The height of the image area 20 in FIG. 15 corresponds to the height of an object of 2 m, which is positioned at a distance of 30 m in front of the camera 16. With regard to the height above the road surface 42 the image area 20 is centered with reference to a point which is at a height D of 4 m above the road surface 42, wherein this height D of 4 m is viewed at a distance of 30 m from the camera 16.”See also ¶[0079], which further describes that the center of the image area 20 is positioned at a height D above the road surface 42, reinforcing that the reference region is defined above a position associated with the road)
Regarding Claim 12 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis disclose A vehicle comprising: the travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 1, and
the photographing apparatus that is installed in the vehicle to capture the photographed image. (Wedajo, [0050] “In the upper part of a front screen of the vehicle 10 a camera 16 is arranged, which captures … image areas … of the surroundings of the vehicle 10….”)
Regarding Claim 13 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis disclose The vehicle according to claim 12, wherein further the processor is configured to further execute the instructions to: (Nishimura, Col, 7, lines 48-51 “…a computational device that reads out programs, data, …like on the RAM 202 and executes processing…)
control the vehicle. (Nishimura, Col, 5, lines 66-67, Col, 6, lines 1-2 “The on-vehicle device 110 is an information apparatus, …such as an on-vehicle Electronic Control Unit (ECU), which is mounted on the vehicle 10.”)
Regarding Claim 14 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis
Claim 14 recites limitations corresponding to those of claim 1, but in a travel environment decision method form rather than a travel environment decision apparatus. Accordingly, the rationale ser forth with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 14. With respect to the limitation “By a computer,” (Nishimura Col, 7, lines 42-51 “A computer 200 includes, for example, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 201 ….The CPU 201 is a computational device that reads out programs, data, or the like stored in the ROM 203, the storage device 204, or the like on the 202 and executes processing to realize functions of the computer 200.”)
Regarding Claim 15 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis
Claim 15 recites limitations corresponding to those of claim 1, but A non-transitory computer readable medium rather than a travel environment decision apparatus. Accordingly, the rationale ser forth with respect to claim 1 applies equally to claim 15. With respect to the limitation “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute: (Nishimura, col, 4, lines 59-63 “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the information processing…”)
Regarding Claim 17 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis discloses 17. (new): The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: based on determining the vehicle is present within a structure, control the vehicle in a structure interior mode. “In this way, the navigation device can detect, in conjunction with the ongoing determination of the position of the vehicle, when the vehicle is about to travel through such a covered road network area. As soon as this is the case during a trip, the navigation device transmits an appropriate message to a control unit which, in response, automatically actuates certain vehicle components in a tunnel-mode function. ….As a result, the vehicle automatically assumes the suitable operating state for travelling through the covered road network area, for example a tunnel, an underpass, a multi-story car park or an underground garage, without the driver of the vehicle having to pay attention himself to activating the tunnel-mode function.”)
Note: The motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 1, applies equally as well to claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis further in view of SAKATA KATSUMI (JP-2007328630-A) (translation provided and citation given from the translated document) hereinafter “Sakata”.
Regarding Claim 4 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis disclose (previously presented) The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 3, wherein
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis does not explicitly disclose
the position associated with the road is a position of a vanishing point on the road in the photographed image.
However, in the same field of endeavor Sakata discloses more explicitly the following:
the position associated with the road is a position of a vanishing point on the road in the photographed image. (Sakata, [0057] “The vanishing point recognizing unit 12a performs processing for recognizing the vanishing point in the screen using an optical flow or the like. Then, the background area dividing unit 12 divides the area above the vanishing point as empty as shown in FIG.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis with Sakata to create the system of Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis as outlined above “the position associated with the road is a position of a vanishing point on the road in the photographed image,” as suggested by Sakata.
The reasoning is that “detection accuracy is improved and the processing load is reduced by detecting candidate regions” (Sakata, [0042])
Note: The motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 4, applies equally as well to claims 5, 6, and 8.
Regarding Claim 5 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis -Sakata disclose (previously presented) The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the analysis processing with respect to the photographed image, further includes determining a second region being a region associated with a subject of a predetermined type other than the sky in the photographed image, and determining, as the reference region, the first region and the second region, in a region above a position associated with the road in the photographed image. (Sakata, [0054] discloses “the background region dividing unit 12 divides the image processed by the preprocessing unit 11 into three background regions, for example, the sky, the road, and the road outside, for each background. Then, the reference pattern selection unit 14 selects a reference pattern to be used by the pedestrian candidate region detection unit 19 depending on from which background region the determination region is cut out” Sakata ¶[0057] states: “The vanishing point recognizing unit 12a …divides the area above the vanishing point as empty as shown in FIG.” Sakata ¶[0058] continues: “The lane recognition unit 12…divides the area inside the lane as the inside of the road as shown in FIG. 5, and sets the outside of the lane as the outside of the road.”)
Regarding Claim 6 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis -Sakata disclose The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 5,
Wherein the second region includes a region associated with at least one of an obstacle and a structure (Sakata, [0040] “The collision determination unit 20 predicts a collision between a pedestrian or another vehicle and the host vehicle using the recognition results obtained by the vehicle recognition unit 16, the white line recognition unit 17, the pedestrian recognition unit 18, and the position information output by the navigation device 30.” Wedajo ¶[0015], ¶[0017] further discloses determining whether the vehicle is inside a structure, explaining that [0015]“…If in both image areas a low average brightness is determined, there is a raised likelihood that the presence of a tunnel is correctly assumed“ and also ¶[0016] explains “Moreover, the second image area arranged below the first image area allows for distinguishing a bridge traversing the road on which the vehicle travels from a tunnel.”)
Regarding Claim 8 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata disclose (previously presented) The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 5,
Wherein whether the vehicle is present within the structure is decided, based on whether surroundings of the first region are surrounded by the second region in the reference region. (Wedajo, [0002] “if the brightness of the obliquely upper image area is below a threshold value of brightness, the number and size of particularly bright areas within this image area are determined. If the number and size of the particularly bright areas in this image area are larger than or equal to a threshold value, it is concluded that these bright areas are light sources mounted in the tunnel.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata further in view of Shimoura et al. (US-5638116-A) hereinafter “Shimoura”.
Regarding Claim 16 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata- Shimoura
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata discloses 16. (previously presented): The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 4,
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata do not explicitly disclose
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the vanishing point on the road by using a line extending in parallel to the road along which the vehicle travels.
However, in the same field of endeavor Shimoura discloses more explicitly the following:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the vanishing point on the road by using a line extending in parallel to the road along which the vehicle travels. (Shimoura, Col, 10, lines 23-27, Col, 13, lines 54-57 “…the road vanishing point can be obtained by extracting, from an image acquired by the on-vehicle camera, two road parallel lines which lengthen in parallel with the road in the image plane, and by obtaining the intersection of the two road parallel line.” “The road vanishing point calculation processing is a processing for obtaining the vanishing point in the image, which is determined as the intersection of right and left edges of the road, on which the vehicle is moving. The road vanishing point is calculated based on the line candidate points obtained by the line candidate point extraction processing.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis -Sakata in view of Shimoura to create the system of Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Sakata as outlined above in order to provide “wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine the vanishing point on the road by using a line extending in parallel to the road along which the vehicle travels.” as suggested by Shimoura.
The reasoning is that this modification “makes it possible to improve the calculation accuracy of the road vanishing point.” (Col, 23, lines 36-37)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis further in view of OTSUKI TOMOE (JP-2019211822-A) (translation provided and citation given from the translated document) hereinafter “Otsuki”.
Regarding Claim 9 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Otsuki
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis (previously presented) The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 1
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first region is determined by using a learning model in which the photographed image is input, and region information for dividing into each region included in the photographed image is output.
However, in the same field of endeavor Otsuki discloses more explicitly the following:
the first region is determined by using a learning model in which the photographed image is input, and region information for dividing into each region included in the photographed image is output. (Otsuki, [0043] “…The dividing unit 23 divides the image 100 input from the acquiring unit 22 into a plurality of divided regions, and outputs the image of each divided region to the road surface determining unit 24. The road surface determination unit 24 reads the road surface image machine learning model 31 …inputs the image of each divided region input from the division unit 23 to the road surface image machine learning model 31.”[0044] “ The road surface machine learning model 31 conceptually includes a processing layer having a three-layer structure of an input layer 31a, …, and an output layer 31c,…provided.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita -Sakata with Otsuki to create the system of Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita as outlined above, in order to implement that “the first region is determined by using a learning model in which the photographed image is input, and region information for dividing into each region included in the photographed image is output.” as suggested by Otsuki.
This modification enhances the ability to accurately determine an unsuitable traveling area or a suitable traveling area on a road on which a vehicle travels” (Otsuki, [0005])
Regarding Claim 10 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Otsuki
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Otsuki discloses The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 9,
wherein the learning model is one of a plurality of learning models according to an attribute of a road, and the first region is determined by using the learning model, among the plurality of learning models, according to an attribute of a road along which the vehicle travels. (Otsuki, [0036] “The learning unit 21 acquires a plurality … of road surface images …and generates and stores a road surface image machine learning model 31 using the road surface images as teaching materials …” [0040] “The learning unit 21 supervises and machine-learns the features such as the color of the road surface, the color, the shape, and the arrangement of the road surface for each of the road surface images…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis further in view of HOGI KENTA (JP-2019211822-A) ) (translation provided and citation given from the translated document) hereinafter “Hogi”.
Regarding Claim 11 Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis-Hogi
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis disclose The travel environment decision apparatus according to claim 1,
Wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: (Nishimura Col, 7, lines 42-51 “A computer 200 includes, for example, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 201 ….The CPU 201 is a computational device that reads out programs, data, or the like stored in the ROM 203, the storage device 204, or the like on the RAM 202 and executes processing to realize functions of the computer 200.”)
Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis do not explicitly disclose
acquire time-series photographed image including the photographed,
determine the first region in each of the time-series photographed images by performing the analysis processing with respect to each of the time-series photographed images,
decide whether each of the time-series photographed images is a structure-inside image photographed within a structure, based on the first region determined in each of the time-series photographed images, and
decide whether the vehicle is present within the structure, based on a decision result regarding each of the each time-series photographed images.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hogi discloses more explicitly the following:
acquire time-series photographed image including the photographed image, (Hogi, [0086] “…in a state where no dark part is detected (the dark part flag DF is off), the far brightness FB is lower than 50, … the near brightness NB is 56. … when a state where the sky brightness SB is lower than 80 is detected continuously for 5 cycles, it is determined that the dark part is detected…”)
determine the first region in each of the time-series photographed images by performing the analysis processing with respect to each of the time-series photographed images, (Hogi, [0096] “In the surrounding darkness detection process, …the predetermined condition is satisfied for the table setting number TSN continues for a predetermined time (5 cycles). Also in the detection process, the setting of the dark portion flag DF is changed only when a predetermined condition is satisfied for the near brightness NB, the far brightness FB, and the sky brightness SB for a predetermined time (5 cycles).”)
decide whether each of the time-series photographed images is a structure-inside image photographed within a structure, based on the first region determined in each of the time-series photographed images, (Hogi,[0086] “ In this way, in a state where no dark part is detected (the dark part flag DF is off), the far brightness FB is lower than 50, the far brightness FB is lower than the far brightness PFB one cycle before, and the near brightness NB is 56. As described above, when a state where the sky brightness SB is lower than 80 is detected continuously for 5 cycles, it is determined that the dark part is detected, and the dark part flag DF is set to on.”) and
decide whether the vehicle is present within the structure, based on a decision result regarding each of the each of the time-series photographed images. (Hogi,[0088] “On the other hand, if YES is determined in step 300, it is determined in step 335 whether the far brightness FB is 50 or more, the near brightness NB is lower than 56, or the sky brightness SB is 80 or more.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis with Hogi to create the system of Wedajo-Nishimura-Fujita-Bairamis as outlined above in order to acquire time-series photographed image, determine the first region through analysis of the photographed images, and decide whether the vehicle is present within structure, as suggested by Hog.
The reasoning is that detection accuracy is improved by detecting dark portions based on the far luminance and the sky luminance. (Hogi, [0012])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE whose telephone number is (703)756-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Fr 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights