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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANABE et al., US 20190102642 in view of Pawlicki et al., US 20160257308)
In considering claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
287
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Microprocessor…is met by CPU 10c of ECU 10 (Fig 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
395
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Extracting…is met by matching unit 150 which extracts (para 123-128, 169, 253)
Selecting feature points…is met where matched number determiner 140 is configured to determine the selection number of optical flows which are included in at least one extracted pixel-region group (para 124-128, 132-135, 138-147, 152, 154-159, 162-166, 169, 175-176, 232-241, 253-256.
Dividing the image information is met where the pixel regions are segmented (divided) to include the target objects (para 19, 20, 23, 35, 36, 90-91, 98-100, 113, 116, 124-128, 197-198, 201-203, as shown in Fig 3 (regions 301-305).
However TANABE does note explicitly recite e) adjusting a number of feature points..based upon distance..
The examiner evidences Pawlicki et al., US 20160257308 which discloses adjusting the data set to a reduced data set based upon the distance of the object to detect objects which are approaching or near the vehicle (para 13-14, 47124), which may reduce processing time by weighting and utilizing image from targeted (closer) portions of the image data than those image data which are outside the zone or area of interesting, where the pixel count may be increase for significant or relevant areas of a scene (para 47, 48, 52, 88, 91)
The motivation to modify TANABE with Pawlicki provides the vehicle the benefit of quickly processing information that is closer (near the vehicle) and may increase pixels in significant areas and reduce pixels in non-significant (further away) thus providing the vehicle/driver necessary information based upon the importance and distance from the vehicle, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 2,
As noted above e), Pawlicki discloses that object/targets that are further away, not near the vehicle may include a reduced data set by ignoring edges or pixels that are not indicative of a vehicle or significant object to reduce the processing requirement and to reduce the possibility of false positive signals.
Regarding the leave feature points on from which more feature points have been extracted is met where if the edges are ignored or the distance is far, although the pixels (feature points were extracted “more”) only relevant areas of the scene would be left for processing (para 44, 47, 101).
The motivation to implement such features into TANABE provide the advantages as noted above, notably to ensure closer objects/targets are given more weight and reducing processing time on areas not relevant, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 3,
TANABE discloses a system which divides pixel regions into a plurality of pixel region groups according to depth distance information about each pixel region (para 6), and also discloses calculating the average value of depth distance (para 82, 120, 166, 167.
However TANABE does not explicitly recite e) adjusting a number of feature points..based upon distance (average distance).
The examiner evidences Pawlicki et al., US 20160257308 which discloses adjusting the data set to a reduced data set based upon the distance of the object to detect objects which are approaching or near the vehicle (para 13-14, 47124), which may reduce processing time by weighting and utilizing image from targeted (closer) portions of the image data than those image data which are outside the zone or area of interesting, where the pixel count may be increase for significant or relevant areas of a scene (para 47, 48, 52, 88, 91)
The motivation to modify TANABE which discloses calculating average distance between object/targets with Pawlicki which increases the pixel count for closer objects and reducing the data set (pixels) for non-relevant/further away (not close) objects/targets, which provides the vehicle the benefit of quickly processing information that is closer (near the vehicle) providing the vehicle/driver necessary information based upon the importance and distance from the vehicle, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 4,
Refer to claim 3, where pixel (feature points) are increased for near/closer objects/targets to the vehicle and reduced for objects/target further away.
Regarding the median, this is not explicitly recited by the combination, although the combination does disclose “average).
It is noted the average is the sum of all numbers divided by the count, while the median is the middle value in a sorted list, wherein mean (average) can be skewed by outliers making the median a better measure for skewed data. The examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding the use of a “Median” where as noted above if data is skewed then a median calculation provides a better measurement, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 5,
The combination does not disclose setting a stationary objects as an extraction target and excluding a moving object.
The examiner notes based upon the application, whether identifying location for instance, the use of stationary markers/objects (landmarks) are used to provide frame of reference for a location, wherein moving objects are not markers/frame of reference for mapping/location since those objects coordinates vary and stationary frame of references coordinates remain constant.
The examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such where is it notoriously well known to use landmarks which are stable/stationary which can be used to determine vehicle location and ignore/exclude moving objects since they are not landmarks thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In considering claim 6,
The examiner notes Pawlicki discloses compares image data from consecutive frames (para 80, 87) to aid in the navigation/driving of the vehicle
The examiner notes the above combination TANABE/Pawlicki does not explicitly recite “SLAM” Simultaneous Localization and Mapping technology which is a conventional technique used by vehicle to map location, by locating common points (features or landmarks) between frames to estimate position, thus the examiner takes “OFFICIAL NOTICE” regarding such technique.
The examiner notes it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to use such conventional method to allow vehicles to build a map of an unknown environment while simultaneously identifying the vehicles location within the map, thus being an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure—see newly cited references on attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Yenke whose telephone number is (571)272-7359. The examiner work schedule is Monday-Thursday, 0730-1830 hrs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, John Miller, can be reached at (571)272-7353.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to:
(571)-273-8300
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is
(703)305-HELP.
General information about patents, trademarks, products and services offered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and other related information is available by contacting the USPTO’s General Information Services Division at:
800-PTO-9199 or 703-308-HELP
(FAX) 703-305-7786
(TDD) 703-305-7785
An automated message system is available 7 days a week, 24 hours a day providing informational responses to frequently asked questions and the ability to order certain documents. Customer service representatives are available to answer questions, send materials or connect customers with other offices of the USPTO from 8:30 a.m. - 8:00p.m. EST/EDT, Monday-Friday excluding federal holidays.
For other technical patent information needs, the Patent Assistance Center can be reached through customer service representatives at the above numbers, Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT.
The Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) allows USPTO customers to retrieve data, check the status of pending actions, and submit information and applications. The tools currently available in the Patent EBC are Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) and the Electronic Filing System (EFS). PAIR (http://pair.uspto.gov) provides customers direct secure access to their own patent application status information, as well as to general patent information publicly available. EFS allows customers to electronically file patent application documents securely via the Internet. EFS is a system for submitting new utility patent applications and pre-grant publication submissions in electronic publication-ready form. EFS includes software to help customers prepare submissions in extensible Markup Language (XML) format and to assemble the various parts of the application as an electronic submission package. EFS also allows the submission of Computer Readable Format (CRF) sequence listings for pending biotechnology patent applications, which were filed in paper form.
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422