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 .
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.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 16 recite “converting coordinate of the plurality of images of the parking area based on a target coordinate and the coordinate of the shooting point of each of the plurality of images.” It is not clear to what the coordinate of the plurality of images of the parking area is being converting to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan et al. (US 2023/0304823 A1).
Consider claim 10, Yuan teaches an electronic device comprising a memorizer and a processor ([0172] – [0176]), wherein the memorizer is configured to store program instructions ([0172] – [0176]), the processor is configured to read and execute the program instructions stored in the memorizer ([0172] – [0176]), when the program instructions are executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to: receive a plurality of images of a parking area and a coordinate of a shooting point of each of the plurality of images ([0162] – [0165]), wherein a maximum shooting time difference of the plurality of images is within a preset duration ([0162] – [0165]: time in the parking lot); construct a fusion image of the parking area based on the plurality of images ([0108] – [0109], [0166] – [0171]); determine a free parking space based on the fusion image ([0108] – [0109], [0166] – [0171]), and determining location information of the free parking space based on the coordinate of the shooting point of each of the plurality of images ([0166] – [0171]).
Consider claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the device recited in claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2023/0304823 A1) in view of Chen (US 2020/0154046 A1).
Consider claim 11, Yuan teaches all the limitations in claim 10 but does not explicitly teach when the program instructions are executed by the processor, further causes the electronic device to: obtain high-frequency image information and low-frequency image information in each of the plurality of images; fuse a plurality of the high-frequency image information to obtain fused high-frequency image information, and fusing a plurality of the low-frequency image information to obtain the fused low-frequency image information; reconstruct the fused high-frequency image information and low-frequency image information to obtain a fused image of the parking area.
Chen teaches when the program instructions are executed by the processor, further causes the electronic device to: obtain high-frequency image information and low-frequency image information in each of the plurality of images ([0029] – [0032]); fuse a plurality of the high-frequency image information to obtain fused high-frequency image information ([0029] – [0032]), and fusing a plurality of the low-frequency image information to obtain the fused low-frequency image information ([0029] – [0032]); reconstruct the fused high-frequency image information and low-frequency image information to obtain a fused image of the parking area ([0029] – [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of obtaining high-frequency image information and low-frequency image information because such incorporation would facilitate improvement of object recognition in the scene. [0029] – [0032].
Consider claim 2, claim 2 recites the method implemented by the device recited in claim 11. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2023/0304823 A1) in view of Chen (US 2020/0154046 A1) and Yan (CN 117456195 A).
Consider claim 12, the combination of Yuan and Chen teaches when the program instructions are executed by the processor, further causes the electronic device to: calculate a first characteristic value of the plurality of the high-frequency image information to obtain the fused high-frequency image information ([0029] – [0032] of Chen); calculate a second characteristic value of the plurality of the low-frequency image information to obtain the fused low-frequency image information ([0029] – [0032] of Chen).
However, the combination does not explicitly teach the first characteristic value and the second characteristic value both comprises one of an average value, a maximum value, a minimum value, and a weighted average value.
Yan teaches the first characteristic value and the second characteristic value both comprises one of an average value, a maximum value, a minimum value, and a weighted average value (p. 6 and p. 10 of the PDF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of using a weighted average value to calculate the characteristic value because such incorporation would enhance the image quality. P. 6 of PDF.
Consider claim 3, claim 3 recites the method implemented by the device recited in claim 12. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2023/0304823 A1) in view of Imai (US 2024/0054793 A1).
Consider claim 13, Yuan teaches all the limitations in claim 10 but does not explicitly teach when the program instructions are executed by the processor, further causes the electronic device to: input the fusion image into a pre-trained recognition model to determine the free parking space, the recognition model is trained based on historical parking space images.
Imai teaches when the program instructions are executed by the processor, further causes the electronic device to: input the fusion image into a pre-trained recognition model to determine the free parking space, the recognition model is trained based on historical parking space images ([0153] – [0169], [0178] – [0187], [0245] – [0249]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of determining the free parking space by inputting the fusion image into a pre-trained recognition model because such incorporation would implement quick and smooth parking assistance by appropriately searching for parking spaces without being affected by the environment of the parking space. [0278] – [0279].
Consider claim 4, claim 4 recites the method implemented by the device recited in claim 13. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2023/0304823 A1) in view of Gribko et al. (US 2023/0138464 A1).
Consider claim 14, Yuan teaches when the program instructions are executed by the processor, further causes the electronic device to: capture images of a target area ([0128] – [0130]); determine whether an occlusion exists in the parking area based on the images of the parking area ([0128] – [0130]); retain the images of the parking area if the occlusion does not exist in the parking area ([0128] – [0130]; [0108] – [0109], [0166] – [0168]).
However, Yuan does not explicitly teach determine a parking area and a non-parking area of the target area based on the images of the target area; retain the images of the parking area and removing the images of the non-parking area; retain the images of the parking area if the occlusion does not exist in the parking area; remove the images of the parking area if the occlusion exists in the parking area.
Gribko teaches determine a parking area and a non-parking area of the target area based on the images of the target area ([0078] – [0082]); retain the images of the parking area and removing the images of the non-parking area ([0078] – [0082]); remove the images of the parking area if the occlusion exists in the parking area ([0078] – [0082]. The technique of removing falsely identified parking spaces can also be applied to removing the images of the parking area if the occlusion exists in the parking area because when the occlusion exists in the parking area (i.e. a vehicle is occupying the parking space), the parking area is essentially not a parking area (falsely identified parking space)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of determining a parking area and a non-parking area of the target area based on the images because such incorporation would help create more accurate parking space detection. [0083].
Consider claim 15, Gribko teaches the location information of the free parking space comprises coordinates of the free parking space and/or a number of the free parking space ([0075] – [0077], [0084], [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of determining a parking area and a non-parking area of the target area based on the images because such incorporation would help create more accurate parking space detection. [0083].
Consider claim 16, Yuan teaches when the program instructions are executed by the processor, further causes the electronic device to: convert coordinates of the plurality of images of the parking area based on a target coordinate and the coordinate of the shooting point of each of the plurality of images ([0066] – [0069], [0139], [0165]).
Consider claim 5, claim 5 recites the method implemented by the device recited in claim 14. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 6, claim 6 recites the method implemented by the device recited in claim 15. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 7, claim 7 recites the method implemented by the device recited in claim 16. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 12,067,878 B1) in view of Yuan et al. (US 2023/0304823 A1).
Consider claim 8, a system for identifying parking space, comprising: a plurality of vehicles configured to capture images of a parking area (col. 9, lines 5-31; col. 30, line 15 – col. 31, line 55); a server configured to receive the images captured and uploaded by the plurality of vehicles (col. 9, lines 5-31; col. 30, line 15 – col. 31, line 55) and receive a coordinate of each of the plurality of vehicles when the plurality of vehicles capturing the images (col. 27, line 58 – col. 28, line 10), wherein a maximum shooting time difference of the plurality of images being within a preset duration (col. 9, lines 5-31; col. 30, line 15 – col. 31, line 55. The time in which the vehicle is searching for a parking space).
However, Campbell does not explicitly teach the server is further configured to construct a fusion image of the parking area based on the plurality of images, determine a free parking space based on the fusion image, and determine location information of the free parking space based on the coordinate of each of the plurality of vehicles when capturing image.
Yuan teaches the server is further configured to construct a fusion image of the parking area based on the plurality of images ([0108] – [0109], [0166] – [0171]), determine a free parking space based on the fusion image ([0108] – [0109], [0166] – [0171]), and determine location information of the free parking space based on the coordinate of each of the plurality of vehicles when capturing image ([0108] – [0109], [0166] – [0171]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of constructing a fusion image of the parking area based on the plurality of images because such incorporation would resolve a problem of finding a parking space by blindly driving a vehicle in the parking lot and thereby improving operating efficiency of an existing parking lot and user experience. [0007].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (US 12,067,878 B1) in view of Yuan et al. (US 2023/0304823 A1) and Gribko et al. (US 2023/0138464 A1).
Consider claim 9, the combination of Campbell and Yuan teaches each of the plurality of vehicles is configured to: capture images of a target area (col. 9, lines 5-31; col. 30, line 15 – col. 31, line 55 of Campbell); determine a parking area and a non-parking area of the target area based on the images of the target area (col. 30, line 15 – col. 31, line 55); retain the images of the parking area ([0128] – [0130]; [0108] – [0109], [0166] – [0168] of Yuan) and determine whether an occlusion exists in the parking area based on the images of the parking area (col. 30, line 15 – col. 31, line 55 of Campbell); retain the images of the parking area if the occlusion does not exist in the parking area ([0128] – [0130]; [0108] – [0109], [0166] – [0168] of Yuan).
However, the combination of Campbell and Yuan does not explicitly teach removing the images of the non-parking area; remove the images of the parking area if the occlusion exists in the parking area.
Gribko teaches removing the images of the non-parking area ([0078] – [0082]); remove the images of the parking area if the occlusion exists in the parking area ([0078] – [0082]. The technique of removing falsely identified parking spaces can also be applied to removing the images of the parking area if the occlusion exists in the parking area because when the occlusion exists in the parking area (i.e. a vehicle is occupying the parking space), the parking area is essentially not a parking area (falsely identified parking space)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of determining a parking area and a non-parking area of the target area based on the images because such incorporation would help create more accurate parking space detection. [0083].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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, JAMIE J ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/TAT C CHIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights