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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 08/29/2025 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102023201888.8, filed on 03/02/2023.
Title Objections
The title is objected to for not clearly defining the invention.
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.
Claim 1-10 is 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.
Claim 1 recites “emitting (S8) a control signal to an operating unit (110) of the vehicle (100)”. There is antecedent basis as vehicle was introduced as “off-road vehicle” prior in the claims. For examination purposes, it should say “emitting (S8) a control signal to an operating unit (110) of the off-road vehicle (100)”.
Claim 8 recites “emitting (S8) the control signal includes sending the control signal to a braking device (112) of the vehicle (100)”. There is antecedent basis as vehicle was introduced as “off-road vehicle” prior in the claims. For examination purposes, it should say “emitting (S8) the control signal includes sending the control signal to a braking device (112) of the off-road vehicle (100)”.
Claim 9 recites “control the drive-dynamic”. There is antecedent basis as “drive-dynamic” was never introduced in the claim. For examination purposes, it should say “control a drive-dynamic”
Claim 10 recites “vehicle (100)”. There is antecedent basis as vehicle was introduced as “off-road vehicle” prior in the claims. For examination purposes, it should say “off-road vehicle (100)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All the subject matter in claim 10 was introduced in claim 9 (vehicle configured to be operated off-road, and control unit for controlling a drive-dynamic of the vehicle) and therefor claim 10 does not further limit the subject matter from claim 9, which it depends from. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K. HANAWA et al. "Development of a Stereo Vision System to Assist the Operation of Agricultural Tractors" (“HANAWA”) in view of US-20060095207-A1 (“Reid”), further in view of US-10165246-B2 to Buerkle et. al. (“Buerkle”).
Regarding claim 9, HANAWA teaches a control unit (HANAWA 3. Image Processing Unit) comprising: filtering corresponding image information about the object (10) from the image information read in as a function of the disparities compared (HANAWA 3. Image Processing Unit “The disparity of the two images is searched until 128 pixels, and output per 0.25 pixels by the sub-pixel calculation. This processing is performed for all blocks on the right camera image, and the disparity value of each of the 6,400 blocks is generated. The aggregate of these disparity values, as in Fig. 4-b, is called a distant image. Here, when the brightness difference between pixels next to the right and left is less than the threshold value, the disparity value is nullified. Most of the black area on the distant image is one in which the disparity value was deleted due to this condition.”), and recognizing the object (10) on the basis of the corresponding image information determined (HANAWA Detection Algorithm “The generated distant image is an aggregate of 6,400 sets of disparity data. First, the value of disparity it for each block of the distant image is substituted into equation (1), and the distance D between the camera and each object is calculated. Next, using the coordinate values of each block on the image, and known parameters such as the mounted position and the camera viewing angle, the coordinate values within the three-dimensional space of each object are calculated. These 6,400 three-dimension-al coordinate values are then analyzed by the algorithm described below, and various objects such as crop rows, ridges, uneven differences, plow ditches and marker trac-es can be detected.”).
HANAWA does not explicitly teach a control unit (120) for controlling an off-road vehicle (100), the control unit (120) comprising: a data interface (122) configured for reading-in an image pair which contains image information about an object (10) present in an environment (2) of the off-road vehicle (100) and about the environment (2); a computer unit (124) configured to determine disparities of the image information of the image pair read in, and a control interface (126) configured for emitting a control signal to an operating unit (110) of the off-road vehicle (100). However, Reid teaches a control unit (120) for controlling an off-road vehicle (100) (Reid ref 32 “vehicular guidance system” and claim 16 “a vehicular guidance system for establishing an obstacle avoidance zone for the vehicle based on the estimated range and dimensions.” and [0034] “the vehicle is permitted to travel in travel rows between the crop rows in a candidate path plan 34.”), the control unit (120) comprising:
a data interface (122) (Reid ref 14 “image combiner”) configured for reading-in an image pair which contains image information about an object (10) (Reid Fig. 2 & 3 ref S200 and [0020] “The left imaging unit 10 and right imaging unit 12 gather a pair of raw stereo scene images of the object”) present in an environment (2) of the off-road vehicle (100) and about the environment (2) (Reid Fig. 2 & 3 ref 296 and [0017] “a detection system 11 for detecting an obstacle in a field of view around a vehicle.” & [0036] “In step S96, an image processor 20 or obstacle detection module 26 identifies an object in a field by analyzing one or more images in color space.” & [0068] “vehicle equipped with the obstacle detection system”);
a computer unit (124) (Reid ref 20 “image processor”) configured to
determine disparities of the image information of the image pair read in (Reid [0023] “The image disparity module 22 creates a disparity map image that represents disparity between the raw stereo scene images from the left imaging unit 10 and the right imaging unit 12.”), and
a control interface (126) (Reid ref 30 “communications interface”) configured for emitting a control signal to an operating unit (110) of the off-road vehicle (100) (Reid ref 31 “vehicular controller” and [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the control unit of HANAWA to incorporate the teachings of Reid such that the control unit is a control unit (120) for controlling an off-road vehicle (100), the control unit (120) comprising: a data interface (122) configured for reading-in an image pair which contains image information about an object (10) present in an environment (2) of the off-road vehicle (100) and about the environment (2); a computer unit (124) configured to determine disparities of the image information of the image pair read in, and a control interface (126) configured for emitting a control signal to an operating unit (110) of the off-road vehicle (100). Doing so would ensure an obstacle detection method and system that uses stereo vision to reliably identify obstacles (Reid [0002]).
HANAWA as modified by Reid does not explicitly teach that the control unit comprises comparing the disparities determined with a predetermined disparity threshold value, and emitting a control signal to an operating unit (110) of the off-road vehicle (100) in order to control the drive-dynamic of the off-road vehicle (100) as a function of the object (10) recognized. However, Buerkle teaches comparing the disparities determined with a predetermined disparity threshold value (Buerkle Claim 1 “identifying a change in disparity between two disparity points of the disparity map that are formed with a spacing from one another, wherein the change in disparity is a difference between a first disparity value of a first one of the two disparity points and a second disparity value of a second one of the two disparity points; comparing the change in disparity to a predetermined threshold value;”), and emitting a control signal to an operating unit (110) (Buerkle Claim 1 “driver assistance system”) of the off-road vehicle (100) in order to control the drive-dynamic of the off-road vehicle (100) as a function of the object (10) recognized (Buerkle Claim 1 “controlling a driver assistance system of a vehicle based on the classifying, wherein the classifying includes assigning the at least one of the two disparity points to one or more predetermined object classes, and wherein a sensitivity of the classifying is adjustable based on a selection of the spacing.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Buerkle to HANAWA as modified by Reid such that the control unit comprises comparing the disparities determined with a predetermined disparity threshold value, and emitting a control signal to an operating unit (110) of the off-road vehicle (100) in order to control the drive-dynamic of the off-road vehicle (100) as a function of the object (10) recognized. Doing so would result in faster reactions by driver assistance systems and increases safety (Buerkle (16)).
With respect to claim 1, all limitations have been examined with respect to the control unit in claim 9. The control unit taught/disclosed in claim 9 can clearly perform the method of claim 1. Therefore claim 1 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. HANAWA further discloses that the image pair read in is a camera image pair (HANAWA 3. Image Processing Unit “The right camera image is divided into blocks 128 wide X 50 tall, each of which is 4 X 4 pixels in size. The right camera image is used as a reference, and the matching point IS sought for each block along the epipolar line on the left camera image. A gray scale, area-based matching”) which has been recorded by an image-registering system (20) that comprises at least one camera (22) (HANAWA 2. Design of a Stereo Camera of the Roof-mounted Type).
Regarding claim 3, HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. HANAWA further discloses that filtering the image information includes determining that the disparities of the image information exceeds the predetermined disparity threshold value (HANAWA 3. Image Processing Unit “The disparity of the two images is searched until 128 pixels, and output per 0.25 pixels by the sub-pixel calculation. This processing is performed for all blocks on the right camera image, and the disparity value of each of the 6,400 blocks is generated. The aggregate of these disparity values, as in Fig. 4-b, is called a distant image. Here, when the brightness difference between pixels next to the right and left is less than the threshold value, the disparity value is nullified. Most of the black area on the distant image is one in which the disparity value was deleted due to this condition.”), and determining the image information as the corresponding image information of the object (10) (HANAWA Detection Algorithm “The generated distant image is an aggregate of 6,400 sets of disparity data. First, the value of disparity it for each block of the distant image is substituted into equation (1), and the distance D between the camera and each object is calculated. Next, using the coordinate values of each block on the image, and known parameters such as the mounted position and the camera viewing angle, the coordinate values within the three-dimensional space of each object are calculated. These 6,400 three-dimension-al coordinate values are then analyzed by the algorithm described below, and various objects such as crop rows, ridges, uneven differences, plow ditches and marker trac-es can be detected.”).
Buerkle further discloses that comparing the disparities includes checking whether the disparities determined exceed the predetermined disparity threshold value (Buerkle Claim 1 “identifying a change in disparity between two disparity points of the disparity map that are formed with a spacing from one another, wherein the change in disparity is a difference between a first disparity value of a first one of the two disparity points and a second disparity value of a second one of the two disparity points; comparing the change in disparity to a predetermined threshold value; classifying at least one of the two disparity points to correspond to an object as a function of whether the change in disparity is greater than, equal to, or less than the predetermined threshold value”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Buerkle to HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle such that comparing the disparities includes checking whether the disparities determined exceed the predetermined disparity threshold value. Doing so would result in faster reactions by driver assistance systems and increases safety (Buerkle (16)).
Regarding claim 4, HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Reid further discloses that the method further comprises: determining (S5) a solid body volume of the object (10) on the basis of the corresponding image information determined (Reid [0039] “the image processor 20 or the obstacle detection module 26 determines differences or correlation between the collected derivative data set and the reference derivative data set to identify the presence of an object or obstacle in (pixels or voxels of) the collected image with one or more colors or color attributes that are sufficiently distinct from the obstacle-free image or obstacle-free portion of the field.”); and wherein recognizing the object (10) is carried out on the basis of the solid body volume (Reid [0039] “Where a portion of the (pixels or voxels) of the collected image has colors that do not match or are not sufficiently correlated to the reference image, the object is identified as present. In one embodiment, the image processor 20 or obstacle detection module 26 identifies the outline, object boundary, or edges of the object by distinguishing the interior color of the object from the background or a material color transition between the boundary of the object and the background through comparisons of groups of pixels or voxels in the region of the image.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Reid to HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle such that the method further comprises: determining (S5) a solid body volume of the object (10) on the basis of the corresponding image information determined; and wherein recognizing the object (10) is carried out on the basis of the solid body volume. Doing so would ensure an obstacle detection method and system that uses stereo vision to reliably identify obstacles (Reid [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Reid further discloses that the method further comprises: comparing (S6) the solid body volume with a predetermined volume threshold value; wherein recognizing the object (10) is performed as a function of a comparison result obtained from comparing the solid body volume (Reid [0039] “Where a portion of the (pixels or voxels) of the collected image has colors that do not match or are not sufficiently correlated to the reference image, the object is identified as present. In one embodiment, the image processor 20 or obstacle detection module 26 identifies the outline, object boundary, or edges of the object by distinguishing the interior color of the object from the background or a material color transition between the boundary of the object and the background through comparisons of groups of pixels or voxels in the region of the image.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Reid to HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle such that the method further comprises: comparing (S6) the solid body volume with a predetermined volume threshold value; wherein recognizing the object (10) is performed as a function of a comparison result obtained from comparing the solid body volume. Doing so would ensure an obstacle detection method and system that uses stereo vision to reliably identify obstacles (Reid [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Buerkle further discloses that the method further comprises: determining (T1) positional information about the object (10) and the environment (2) from the image information (Buerkle (32) “The spacing between two disparity points having the coordinates (X1, Y1) and (X2, Y2) can be referred to as Δ(ΔX, ΔY), where X2=X1+ΔX and Y2=Y1+ΔY. ΔX refers to the horizontal spacing, i.e. in the X direction, between the two disparity points. ΔY refers to the vertical spacing, i.e. in the Y direction, between the two disparity points.”); comparing (T2) the positional information with at least one predetermined positional threshold value; wherein filtering (S4) the corresponding image information about the object (10) is carried out as a function of a comparison result obtained from comparing the positional information (Buerkle (33) “provision can be made that the spacing Δ between the two disparity points is selected as a function of a position of one of the two disparity points in the disparity map. This advantageously makes possible a sensitivity adjustment in terms of classification. With a suitable selected spacing, even smaller objects can thus be detected as obstacles.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Buerkle to HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle such that the method further comprises: determining (T1) positional information about the object (10) and the environment (2) from the image information; comparing (T2) the positional information with at least one predetermined positional threshold value; wherein filtering (S4) the corresponding image information about the object (10) is carried out as a function of a comparison result obtained from comparing the positional information. Doing so would result in faster reactions by driver assistance systems and increases safety (Buerkle (16)).
Regarding claim 7, HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 6. Buerkle further discloses that determining (T1) the positional information includes determining height information about the object (10) and the environment (2) from the image information of the image pair (Buerkle (35) “provision can be made that the spacing between the two disparity points is selected as a function of a height of an expected object, in particular of an obstacle, to be expected.”); and wherein comparing the positional information includes comparing the height information with at least one predetermined height threshold value (Buerkle (29) “The fact that the classification of the disparity points is carried out as a function of h (the change in disparity) means in particular that a predetermined threshold value, in particular multiple predetermined threshold values, are provided, the classification being carried out in particular as a function of whether h is greater than, equal to, less than, greater than or equal to, or less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, preferably equal to the multiple predetermined threshold values. Provision can thus be made, for example, that if h is less than the threshold value, the disparity point is classified as a first object, for example an obstacle; and if h is greater than the threshold value, the disparity point is classified as a second object, for example a travelable area.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Buerkle to HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle such that determining (T1) the positional information includes determining height information about the object (10) and the environment (2) from the image information of the image pair; and wherein comparing the positional information includes comparing the height information with at least one predetermined height threshold value. Doing so would result in faster reactions by driver assistance systems and increases safety (Buerkle (16)).
Regarding claim 8, HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Reid further discloses that recognizing (S7) the object (10) includes determining that the object poses a risk of collision (Reid [0055] “The obstacle-avoiding path plan 36 is determined to avoid any possible collision between the object and the vehicle. If the object is stationary in the field of view of the image collection system 15, the image processor 20 may use a single frame or stereo image to provide sufficient information to avoid a collision. However, it is understood that if the object or obstacle is moving, the image processor 20 may need multiple frames or stereo images to identify the velocity (speed and direction) and acceleration or deceleration of such movement to effectively avoid a collision.”); and emitting (S8) the control signal includes sending the control signal to a braking device (112) of the vehicle (100) in order to bring about an emergency stop of the off-road vehicle (100) as a function of the risk of collision (Reid [0033] “vehicular controller 31 may be associated with a braking system, a steering system, and a propulsion system to control the acceleration, movement direction, stopping of a vehicle, or general driving of the vehicle” & [0034] “the vehicle is permitted to travel in travel rows between the crop rows in a candidate path plan 34. The candidate path plan 34 may be interrupted, stopped, or changed based on one or more of the following: obstacle avoidance zone, row location data, obstacle location data, object dimension data, and object range data. In one embodiment, the row alignment may be sacrificed to avoid striking or running over an object such that the actual path plan 36 or obstacle-avoiding path plan 36 differs from the candidate path plan 34.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Reid to HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle such that recognizing (S7) the object (10) includes determining that the object poses a risk of collision; and emitting (S8) the control signal includes sending the control signal to a braking device (112) of the vehicle (100) in order to bring about an emergency stop of the off-road vehicle (100) as a function of the risk of collision. Doing so would ensure an obstacle detection method and system that uses stereo vision to reliably identify obstacles (Reid [0002]).
Regarding claim 10, HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 9. Reid further discloses a vehicle (100) (Reid [0068] “vehicle equipped with the obstacle detection system 11 moves throughout a work area or its environment”) configured to be operated off-road, wherein the vehicle (100) comprises a control unit (120) for controlling a drive-dynamic of the vehicle (100) (Reid ref 32 “vehicular guidance system” and claim 16 “a vehicular guidance system for establishing an obstacle avoidance zone for the vehicle based on the estimated range and dimensions.” and [0034] “the vehicle is permitted to travel in travel rows between the crop rows in a candidate path plan 34.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Reid to HANAWA as modified by Reid and Buerkle such that a vehicle (100) can be configured to be operated off-road, wherein the vehicle (100) comprises a control unit (120) for controlling a drive-dynamic of the vehicle (100). Doing so would ensure an obstacle detection method and system that uses stereo vision to reliably identify obstacles for vehicles (Reid [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights