DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 02/26/2025, wherein claims 1-5 are pending are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 02/26/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
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 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein US 2013/0147957 A1, in view of Smith US 11,999,212 B1, hereinafter referred to as Stein and Smith, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), Stein teaches and/or suggests “A surrounding situation recognition device comprising a processor configured to [See figs. 1-2]: acquire an image of the front of a vehicle shot by a camera located in a position out of a lower portion which is lower than a line segment connecting a headlight of the vehicle and a fallen object on a road surface in front of the vehicle [As per the camera and headlight arrangement in figs. 2A-2B of the instant disclosure and given the BRI of the aforementioned features, please see figs. 3A-3B of Stein, where the positions of camera 12 and a headlight of a vehicle relative to an object 34 (¶0046-¶0047) are similarly arranged. The claimed “line segment” can be construed as the line connecting the headlight to object 34. Since Stein’s object is not defined as being “fallen”, see Smith below for support], the line segment being included in a vertical plane [Given the BRI of the aforementioned features, one can define a vertical plane through the vehicle in a longitudinal direction that passes through the headlight. As such, the line connecting Stein’s headlight and object 34 (figs. 3a-3b) will be included in said plane] and the lower portion being included in the vertical plane [Please refer to figs. 3A-3B of Stein]; and detect the fallen object included in the image by using the fact that a shadow created on the road surface by the fallen object blocking light emitted from the headlight is included in the image [See shadow 32 of object 34 in figs. 3A-3B], the shadow being positioned on the opposite side of the headlight across the fallen object.” [Shadow 32 is on an opposite side of the headlight across object 34 as illustrated] Although Stein’s teachings provide a means for detecting obstacles based on shadows in a driver assistance system (e.g. ¶0011), the obstacles disclosed are not defined as “fallen” objects but could be for e.g. a speed bump, a raised manhole cover, etc. (¶0046). To show that fallen objects can be detected by analyzing its shadow, the work of Smith from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest this feature [Col. 2 lines 52-59 disclose employing shadow analysis of an image frame for characterizing a terrain obstacle on a travel path of a host vehicle. Examples of said obstacle include boulders, logs, blocks, and others (col. 6 lines 60-64), which can be construed as “fallen”] Based on Smith’s clearance risk detection system (e.g. abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not only detect the obstacles in Stein through detecting its shadow (e.g. figs. 3a-3b), but to also include other objects that may have fallen on a road, such as those presented in Smith as above, and whose shadows can be analyzed for estimating an object’s dimension to help yield information regarding the risk the object may pose to a traveling vehicle (e.g. abstract and col. 2 lines 52-59).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the device of claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please see X for support.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein, in view of Smith, and in further view of Yasui et al. US 2022/0319198 A1, hereinafter referred to as Yasui.
Regarding claim 2, Stein and Smith teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Stein and Smith do not appear to address the features of claim 2, the work of Yasui from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest, “wherein the processor is configured to extract an area in which the fallen object affecting travel of the vehicle and the shadow of the fallen object may exist, the area being included in the image, and detect the fallen object based on the determination result of whether the shadow is included in the area.” [In the context of object detection for a vehicle (e.g. abstract and ¶0069), see ¶0075-¶0077 with respect to extracting/cutting portions of a captured image which can be analyzed for determining whether a point of interest is for e.g. a falling object] Based on Yasui’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work of both Stein and Smith to add the teachings of Yasui as above for generating a trained model for discriminating an object present on a road in a captured image mounted on a moving vehicle (e.g. abstract and ¶0004). As such, a range covered by training processing can be expanded (e.g. ¶0048).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 3 is 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records when considering the claim as a whole. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
3. The surrounding situation recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to detect the fallen object included in the image based on the image by using a model obtained by performing learning using teacher data which is a data set of a learning image of the front of a learning vehicle shot by a camera of the learning vehicle and a label showing whether a shadow of a learning fallen object is included in the learning image, at least an area in which the learning fallen object affecting the travel of the learning vehicle and the shadow of the learning fallen object may exist is cut out and used for the learning of the model, the area in which the learning fallen object and the shadow of the learning fallen object may exist being included in the learning image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references. For e.g., see abstract and figs. 1-2 in Hart et al. US 10,990,834 B2 with respect to detecting a shadow within a captured image of an object being illuminated by a vehicle’s light source.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486