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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 10/10/2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/28/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea – mental process) without significantly more. Claim 1 is used as an example. Claim 16 recites a device having a memory and a processor. The two-part test to identify claims that are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A) and to then evaluate if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) are:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1. A distance determination method comprising: (a) generating a target image using a camera; (b) generating a lane plane image based on the target image; (c) generating a depth map based on the target image; and (d) determining a target distance between the camera and a point in a real world corresponding to a target pixel in the lane plane image based on the lane plane image and the depth map.
[emphasis added].
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite a method and a device, therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One: Yes. When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation, the instant claims are directed to a Judicial Exception – an abstract idea belonging to the group of mental process – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The steps of (b), (c) and (d) (above in emphasized claim 1) are generically recited and nothing in these steps precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human equipped with an appropriate apparatus. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data and determining a distance between a camera and a point in the target image. There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen and a paper, can not perform. The determining and generating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The claim encompasses the user thinking that the once the image is received, attribute such as a distance and lane of a section of the image can be determined. This way, essentially one can present/output information about the section of an image that represents that shape/orientation. Thus, these limitations are a mental process.
With regard to (2A), Prong Two: No. The instant claims do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of (a) “generating” – which essentially meaning ‘receiving’, and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The use of a device/memory/processor to generates/receive an image (i.e., “data”) using a camera at a high level of generality such that said “data” can be used in the operation of the recited judicial exception (the mental step of “generating”). Supplying “data” does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said data do not change the way in which said system operates. There are no specifics on how the data is generated. This can be interpreted as “visualization”. Even if this step is by a “processor” that may be, for example, a camera. A camera/sensor is well known in the field, and generating/receiving data from a camera/sensor is also well known.
This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In conclusion, the claim as a whole does not provide for “integration” of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
With regard to (2B), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. There is no improvement to technology here. There is only steps of (b), (c) and (d) with additional elements of (a), and it has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
Therefore, the claims 1 and 16 are ineligible.
With regard to dependent claims 2-11 and 15, similar analysis is applied and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application – does not provide significant more than the judicial exception. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons discussed in view of steps recited in claims 1 and 16 and not repeated herewith.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0131924A1 to Jung et al. (hereafter, “Jung”).
With regard to claim 1 Jung discloses a distance determination method (Figures 6 and 7, paragraphs [0045, 0064-0072]) comprising: generating a target image using a camera (610; paragraph [0064] a generation apparatus acquires a driving image using a capturing device, for example, a vision sensor and a camera, included in the vehicle during driving); generating a lane plane image based on the target image (620 and 640; paragraph [0065] the generation apparatus detects a 2D lane or a 2D lane marking from the driving image acquired in operation 610. The 2D lane detected in operation 620 may be detected in a form of x and y coordinates in a short-distance area of a road); generating a depth map based on the target image (630; paragraph [0066] the generation apparatus acquires a depth map corresponding to a front of a vehicle using any one or any combination of a stereo camera, an ultrasonic sensor, a lidar, and a radar); and determining a target distance between the camera and a point in a real world corresponding to a target pixel in the lane plane image based on the lane plane image and the depth map (paragraph [0045] “extrinsic parameter” of the camera is a term generalized in association with a camera calibration and corresponds to, for example, a parameter representing movement, rotation, and seize conversion in the camera such as a 3D location and 3D posture information such as pan, tilt, pitch, yaw, and roll of the camera. Additionally, such “extrinsic parameter” of the camera may correspond to, for example, a relationship between the camera and a photographed surface such as a focal length and principal point distortion coefficient; Figures 6 and 7; lane is detected in a form of 2D coordinates, for example, (x, y) of vertices configuring a lane marking of a short-distance area on a road).
With regard to claim 2 Jung discloses wherein the generating of the lane plane image comprises: generating a first image in which a region of interest is set, based on the target image; generating a second image in which line segments are extracted, based on the first image; generating a third image in which lane lines are extracted, based on the second image; and generating the lane plane image, based on the third image (Figure 7, image where region is set, line segment with free space is extracted, and dominant plane image is generated, see corresponding descriptions at paragraphs [0073-0080]).
With regard to claim 3 Jung discloses wherein the generating of the first image comprises: setting a vanishing point for the target image; and extracting the region of interest based on the vanishing point (paragraphs [0044-0045]).
With regard to claim 4 Jung discloses wherein the generating of the second image comprises: separating line segments for the region of interest in the first image; and extracting the separated line segments (Figure 7, see 710, 730 and 760 and it’s corresponding description in the reference).
With regard to claim 7 Jung discloses wherein the generating of the third image comprises: separating lane lines for the line segments in the second image; and extracting the separated lane lines (Figure 7, see 710, 730, 740 and 760 and it’s corresponding description in the reference).
With regard to claim 8 Jung discloses wherein the lane lines are separated based on angles of lines included in the line segments, lengths of the lines included in the line segments, or distances from a vanishing point to the lines included in the line segments (paragraph [0045]).
With regard to claim 9 Jung discloses wherein the generating of the lane plane image based on the third image comprises: determining a lane region based on the lane lines in the third image; and generating the lane plane image based on the determined lane region (Figure 7, see 710, 730, 740 and 760 and it’s corresponding description in the reference).
With regard to claim 10 Jung discloses wherein the lane region is determined based on coordinate values of pixels included in the lane lines (paragraph [0097], Figures 7 and 9).
With regard to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claim 16. Jung discloses a device 800 with a processor 820 and memory 830, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
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 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 of this title, 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.
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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0131924A1 to Jung et al. (hereafter, “Jung”) in combination with US 2017/0103268A1 to Santamaria et al. (hereafter, “Santamaria”).
With regard to claim 5, Jung teaches the distance determination method of claim 4. However, Jung does not expressly teach wherein the line segments are separated based on edges of objects included in the region of interest.
Santamaria teaches wherein the line segments are separated based on edges of objects included in the region of interest (Figures 4-5; paragraphs [0047-0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung’s reference to have line segments separated based on edges of objects of Santamaria’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implement an image segmentation analysis on the received video recording data, as suggested by Santamaria.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Santamaria with Jung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
With regard to claim 15, Jung teaches the distance determination method of claim 4. June discloses determined target distance between the camera and the point in the real world corresponding to the target pixel in the lane plane image (paragraph [0045] “extrinsic parameter” of the camera is a term generalized in association with a camera calibration and corresponds to, for example, a parameter representing movement, rotation, and seize conversion in the camera such as a 3D location and 3D posture information such as pan, tilt, pitch, yaw, and roll of the camera. Additionally, such “extrinsic parameter” of the camera may correspond to, for example, a relationship between the camera and a photographed surface such as a focal length and principal point distortion coefficient; Figures 6 and 7; lane is detected in a form of 2D coordinates, for example, (x, y) of vertices configuring a lane marking of a short-distance area on a road). However, Jung does not expressly teach visualizing and outputting, to a user, [the determined target distance between the camera and the point in the real world corresponding to the target pixel in the lane plane image].
Santamaria teaches visualizing and outputting, to a user, the determined target distance between the camera and the point in the real world corresponding to the target pixel in the lane plane image (display 104, paragraphs [0027-0029, 0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung’s reference to have display of Santamaria’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to output information observable by the user, as suggested by Santamaria at paragraph [0029].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Santamaria with Jung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0131924A1 to Jung et al. (hereafter, “Jung”) in combination with US 11,270,131B2 to Sugie et al. (hereafter, “Sugie”).
With regard to claim 6, Jung teaches the distance determination method of claim 4. However, Jung does not expressly teach wherein the line segments are separated based on a degree of changes in brightness values of pixels included in the region of interest.
Sugie wherein the line segments are separated based on a degree of changes in brightness values of pixels included in the region of interest (Figs 19-23, col. 12 lines 30-42 and other respective portions in the specification for Figs 19-23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung’s reference to have line segments be separated based on degree of changes in brightness values of pixels of Sugie’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have a point of change such as an increase or decrease in painting is represented as differences in color as road information, as suggested by Sugie on col. 12.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sugie with Jung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0131924A1 to Jung et al. (hereafter, “Jung”) in combination with US 2020/0242804A1 to Eisenmann et al. (hereafter, “Eisenmann”).
With regard to claim 11, Jung teaches the distance determination method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the depth map comprises generating a depth map for the target image [using a pre-trained] depth map [generation model] (630; paragraph [0066] the generation apparatus acquires a depth map corresponding to a front of a vehicle using any one or any combination of a stereo camera, an ultrasonic sensor, a lidar, and a radar). However, Jung does not expressly teach [wherein the generating of the depth map comprises generating a depth map for the target image] using a pre-trained [depth map] generation model.
Eisenmann teaches a pre-trained [depth map] generation model (Figures 4-5, 8-9; paragraphs [0051, 0056, 0073-0079, 0091-0092, 0109-0110]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung’s reference to have pre-trained generation model of Eisenmann’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to utilize the vanishing lines in conjunction with a geometric model to accurately identify camera parameters and generate a modified digital image; and, to further enhance efficiency and accuracy, also generate accurate training data from existing digital image repositories and use this training data to train a critical edge detection neural network, as suggested by Eisenmann at paragraph [0006].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Eisenmann with Jung to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 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. The cited art of record fails to teach, disclose or suggest the limitations of “wherein the determining of the target distance comprises: determining a target pixel in the lane plane image; determining a target normal vector for the target pixel in the lane plane image; determining a relative target height of the camera for the target pixel based on the target normal vector; determining a scale factor based on the relative target height of the camera for the target pixel and an absolute height of the camera measured in advance; and determining the target distance between the camera and the point in the real world corresponding to the target pixel in the lane plane image based on the scale factor”, recited in claim 12. Claims 13-14 are dependent from claim 12 and are objected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7,668,377 – discloses method of obtaining a depth map from a digital image of a three-dimensional scene containing geometric objects is provided that includes the identification in the image of at least one horizontal plane or one vertical plane of the three-dimensional scene and the assignment to every point of the image forming part of the identified plane, or to each one of the identified planes, of a depth level according to its distance from, respectively, a predetermined horizontal or vertical reference straight line of the image. In particular, the identification of at least one plane includes the identification in the image of at least two vanishing lines corresponding to two parallel lines in the plane and the assignment of a depth level made in accordance with the angular coefficients of the identified vanishing lines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights