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 Status
This Office Action responds to reply filed on 8/17/26 regarding application 18/956548 that was initially filed on 11/22/24. Claims 13-20 are pending.
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.
1. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., US 2019/0150357 A1 (hereinafter Wu) in view of Kreiling et al., US 2021/0043085 A1 (hereinafter Kreiling), and further in view of Sibley et al., US 2022/0117218 A1 (hereinafter Sibley as previously indicated in the last Office Action mailed on 5/18/26).
2. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Kreiling, Sibley, and further in view of Bacchus et al., US 2022/0155451 A1 (hereinafter Bacchus) as previously indicated in the last Office Action mailed on 5/18/26.
3. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Kreiling, Sibley, Bacchus, and further in view of Arbabian et al., US 2022/0026557 A1 (hereinafter Arbabian) as previously indicated in the last Office Action mailed on 5/18/26.
4. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Bacchus, and further in view of Arbabian as previously indicated in the last Office Action mailed on 5/18/26.
5. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Bacchus, Arbabian, and further in view of Sibley as previously indicated in the last Office Action mailed on 5/18/26.
6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Bacchus, Arbabian, and further in view of Eidehall, US 2025/0095344 A1 (hereinafter Eidehall) as previously indicated in the last Office Action mailed on 5/18/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with respect to claim 13 that the rejection is improper because Kreiling does not classify objects in the combined feed, OA does not assert that Kreiling teaches the classifying in the combined feed, thus, it is not a reason why the OA is improper. Instead, Kreiling is used to teach “the combined image data having a field of view of 360 degrees.” Thus, the argument is not commensurate with the OA. Although Applicant further argues that the motivation provided is not a reason to feed the data, first, as discussed above, the feeding data is not commensurate with the OA, and second, the motivation is for the combining the references, not a reason to modify a particular element in the references. Although Applicant further argues that Sibley’s teaching is for stereo pair image data not combined image data, note that MPEP states that "[i]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." MPEP 2141.03 I. “Common sense teaches ... that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 420 (2007). In this case, Sibley’s classification works on image data which would work on combined data as well because the combined image is also a type of an image. Although Applicant further argues that substituting 360 stitched surround composite for stereo pairs would defeat the epipolar processing of Sibley, note that MPEP states that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." MPEP 2141.03 I. The combination done by a person having ordinary skill in art brings the teaching of classification of Sibley, not the whole system as is. Thus, the argument based on Applicant’s modification is not persuasive.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 15 that Baccus’s teaching is not fusing 3D radar point data with combined image data to generate fused data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Baccus’ rada image is a 3D radar point cloud data because the data has 2D image (2D dimension) and range data (one more dimension) which makes 3D point cloud data which is from radar resulting in 3D radar point cloud data. Arbabian’s pixel-wise segmentation is not an instance segmentation for instances of objects. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language of the claim 15 does not requires the instance as instances of objects. The definition of the term “instance” is broad. A definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is “an individual illustrative of a category” and the pixel-wise segmentation is still an instance segmentation because the pixels are instances. While Applicant further argues that the cited figure is one that only shows vision images/estimates, the same sentence states that it apples to “vision, radar, or a fused of the two,” thus, Applicant misunderstands the sentence.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 17 that Wu does not teach creating combined image data whose field of view corresponds to the field of view of a radar, thus, it fails to teach or suggest every element of claim 17, and Examiner agrees. OA does not assert that Wu teaches or suggests every element of claim 17, and it is not a reason why the OA is improper because the rejection of claim 17 is based on combination of references. Although Applicant further argues that the motivation statement does not give a reason to make the modification, the motivation is for the combining the references, not a reason to modify elements in the references. Although Applicant further argues that no reasoning with rational underpinning is provided, OA provides the modification as “modify the monitoring and control implement for crop improvement of Wu with the teaching of autonomous system for light treatment of a plant of Sibley.” In addition, further detailed modification is provided by “Wu discloses a method of operating an agricultural vehicle ([0043], e.g., agricultural vehicle), the method comprising: receiving image data ([0045], e.g., image) from cameras ([0045], e.g., image sensor units and camera units) operably coupled to the agricultural vehicle ([0043], e.g., agricultural vehicle); combining ([0052], e.g., stitched together) image data from two or more cameras to create combined image data, Bacchus teaches receiving radar data from radars ([0039], e.g., a plurality of radars) operably coupled to the agricultural vehicle; image data having a field of view corresponding to a field of view ([0040], e.g., the height … can be calculated using … range information from the radar and angle of the target that can be determined from the image, note the same field of view implied) of at least one of the radars; fusing ([0040], e.g., used together to generate a model) the radar data with the combined image data to form fused data; and Arbabian teaches controlling one or more operations ([0117], e.g., segmentation) of the agricultural vehicle based on the fused data ([0117], e.g., image, radar, and fusion of the two).” Applicant further argues that “[c]ontrolling the issuance of alerts by an alert module in a scene-monitoring sensor is not "controlling one or more operations of the agricultural vehicle based on the fused data" as recited by claim 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is attacking references individually. MPEP states that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP 2145 IV. In the instant application, Wu teaches the agricultural vehicle. Arbabian teaches the controlling an operation based on the fused data. The combination of the references teach the limitation. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2003/0108099 discloses picture encoding method and apparatus, picture decoding method and apparatus and furnishing medium.
2. US 2005/0053294 discloses techniques and tools for progressive and interlaced video coding and decoding.
3. US 2006/0126962 discloses methods and systems for reducing blocking artifacts with reduced complexity for spatially-scalable video coding.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights