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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024, 05/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are considered by examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is an example suggestion: Image processing device, method and storage medium for road and cross road detection.
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 limitations are:
Claim 1
“acquirer” identified as element 110 of Figure 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and described in the specification in at least ¶ [0019], [0021], [0030]-[0031].
“extractor” identified as element 120 of Figure 1 and described in the specification in at least ¶ [0019], [0021], [0033].
“first detector” identified as element 130 of Figure 1, 4 and described in the specification in at least ¶ [0019], [0022], [0033]-[0036].
“second detector” identified as element 132 of Figure 1, 4 and described in the specification in at least ¶ [0019], [0022], [0037]-[0041].
“first feature point extractor” identified as element 140 of Figure 1 and described in the specification in at least ¶ [0019], [0023], [0042].
“second feature point extractor” identified as element 142 of Figure 1 and described in the specification in at least ¶ [0019], [0023], [0042].
“calibrator” identified as element 150 of Figure 1, 4 and described in the specification in at least ¶ [0019], [0024], [0043]-[0052].
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims each incorporate particular detailed computer processing operations that are considered an improvement upon existing technological processes and therefore are statutory eligible. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and MPEP § 2106(II).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, each 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 § 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites an image processing method (the mind can process visual information of the surroundings) comprising: by a computer (claimed as a generic computer component),
acquiring an image in a periphery of a mobile object from an imaging device mounted on the mobile object (the mind can receive visual data from the eyes as sensors attached to the body while moving);
extracting feature points from the acquired image (the mind can recognize features in the viewed surroundings);
detecting a moving road area in which the mobile object moves based on the image (the mind can recognize features in the viewed surroundings, specifically including a road area while the body is in motion);
detecting a cross road area that crosses the moving road area based on the image (the mind can recognize features in the viewed surroundings, specifically including a crossing road area while the body is in motion);
extracting a feature point of the moving road area as a first feature point among the extracted feature points (the mind can recognize features in the viewed surroundings, specifically including a specific road region while the body is in motion);
extracting a feature point of the cross road area as a second feature point among the feature points (the mind can recognize features in the viewed surroundings, specifically including a specific crossing road region area while the body is in motion); and
calibrating the image on the basis of the first feature point and the second feature point (the mind can recognize the spatial relationship between the road and the cross road region).
Claim 8 recites a computer-readable non-transient storage medium that has stored a program causing a computer (computer-readable non-transient storage medium, program and computer are claimed as generic computer components to perform an abstract idea mental process) to execute: steps identical to claim 7 (as described above).
The limitations of identifying a road and cross road area by an imaging device mounted on a moving object are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, regarding the method, other than reciting generic placeholder-related computer components, such as a generically claimed computer, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, language of “acquiring” is to obtain data; “extracting” is to further obtaining data in the broadest claimed context of the limitation as claimed; “detecting” is to identify objects the image data; and “calibrating” is to compare the data within the visual scene. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these claims each recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the method claims do not recite any elements which could not be performed in the mind and the claims only recite generic placeholder-related computer components, in particular a generically claimed computer, storage medium and computer executed instructions. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic computer components to execute visual processing, which is described with a high level of generality of automating a manual operation) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the aforementioned claims are directed to abstract ideas.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic placeholder-related computer components to automate a manual operation a person performs in their mind amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an invention concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6, as discussed above Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims each incorporate particular detailed computer processing operations that are considered an improvement upon existing technological processes and therefore are statutory eligible. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689-90 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and MPEP § 2106(II).
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (JP 2024/520399, with US 2024/0257385 cited as the translation with foreign priority) in view of Hernandez et al (Crosswalk Detection Based on Laser Scanning from Moving Vehicle).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al teaches an image processing method (method of using autonomous driving apparatus 40; Fig 2 and ¶ [0035]) comprising: by a computer (processor 46 and memory 47 (components of a computer); Fig 2 and ¶ [0035]-[0037]),
acquiring an image in a periphery of a mobile object from an imaging device mounted on the mobile object (image data 50 is acquired by a sensor 42-45 of an autonomous vehicle, with the sensor mounted on an autonomous vehicle; Fig 2, 3 and ¶ [0035], [0038]);
extracting feature points from the acquired image (the image data is analyzed to identify objects based on features of the data (plurality of data each data point of a size MxN); Fig 4, 5 and ¶ [0051], [0055]);
detecting a moving road area in which the mobile object moves based on the image (the objects identified may including road data and the image may be taken to detect movement of the vehicle on the road; Fig 3-5 and ¶ [0044], [0047], [0053]-[0055]);
detecting a cross road area that crosses the moving road area based on the image (the object data detected may include an intersection (road cross area) while the vehicle is motion; Fig 3-5 and ¶ [0044], [0047], [0053]-[0055]);
extracting a feature point of the moving road area as a first feature point among the extracted feature points (the object data may include the road of the first of plurality of image data pieces of a certain size (first feature point); Fig 3-5 and ¶ [0055]);
extracting a feature point of the cross road area as a second feature point among the feature points (the object data may include the road intersection as a second of plurality of image data pieces of a certain size (second feature point); Fig 3-5 and ¶ [0051], [0055]).
Kim et al does not explicitly teach calibrating the image on the basis of the first feature point and the second feature point.
Hernandez et al is analogous art pertinent to the technological problem addressed in the current application and teaches calibrating (calibration is described as detecting feature points between frames using vector data over time, specification ¶ [0044]) the image on the basis of the first feature point and the second feature point (the crosswalk markings are detected within the road surface using reflective properties of the road marking materials and is used to determine distance from given fixed points (vector CMD point P) from the vehicle imaging sensor to the point on the crosswalk; Fig 2, 5, 6 and III.C. Method - Crosswalk Marking Detection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to combine the teachings of Kim et al with Hernandez et al including calibrating the image on the basis of the first feature point and the second feature point. By performing distance analysis of identified objects, an advanced driver assistance system is developed for improved traffic safety including for pedestrians in crosswalks, as recognized by Hernandez et al (I. Introduction ¶ 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim et al teach a computer-readable non-transient storage medium that has stored a program causing a computer (processor 46 executes instructions stored memory 47 of autonomous driving apparatus 40 to perform image analysis; Fig 2-6 and ¶ [0035]-[0037]) to execute: steps identical to claim 7 (as described above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
Claim 1 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), as discussed above, and the prior art is not identified to teach the entirety of the applicant’s claimed invention based on the entirety of the disclosed algorithms discussed in prose within the specification. Claims 2-6 are dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kanehara et al (US 2022/0319191, application 17/704,635) is from the same applicant and inventor and teaches a control device of a mobile object including an imaging device with a wide angle lens used to capture moving environmental data and used to determine an object and reduce image distortion, which the current application is distinct from by claiming the environmental data extraction for detecting a road and a cross(walk) area of a road and using the data to calibrate the image data.
Kanehara et al (US 2025/0209829, application 18/999,172) is from the same applicant and inventor and teaches a similar invention to the current application, however, the claims are distinct from the two applications and the ‘172 application is focused on multiple images from different directions (including Fig 5, 6), whereas the current ‘192 application is focused on a single image and detecting a road and a road area that crosses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 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.
/KATHLEEN M BROUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights