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 .
Status of Claims
This is the First Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and addressed below.
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. JP 2024-084170, filed on 05/23/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/25/2025 and 10/01/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDSs are enclosed herewith.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“the driving unit that drives the door . . .” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 § 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.
Claims 1 – 7 are 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “calculate a depth difference between the intrusion determination region and overlapping portion in the frame-image . . .”. It is unclear to the Examiner, in view of the applicant’s specification [0026], how the depth (e.g. “the depth is a distance from the internal camera 2A to a target”) difference is being calculated “between the intrusion determination region and overlapping portion” when the overlapping portion is apparently part of the intrusion determination region and overlaps with it.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the electronic control unit is configured to calculate the depth difference using the frame-image in which the intrusion determination region in a state where the overlapping portion is not present is imaged as a reference frame, and based on a result of a comparison between the reference frame and the overlapping portion of which the degree of overlapping is equal to or higher than the predetermined degree”. It is unclear to the Examiner what the limitation “which the intrusion determination region in a state where the overlapping portion is not present is imaged as a reference frame” is intended to modify. Further, it is unclear to the Examiner what is “based on a result of a comparison between the reference frame and the overlapping portion of which the degree of overlapping is equal to or higher than the predetermined degree”. For example, is calculating the “depth difference . . .” based on “a result of a comparison between the reference frame and the overlapping portion . . .” ? or is it something else. Examiner notes that grammatical revision is needed to the entire claim.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “. . . in which the user region and the intrusion determination region set in a rectangular shape overlap, the user region having the rectangular shape and including the user”. It is unclear to the Examiner what the limitation “. . . set in a rectangular shape overlap . . .” is intended to modify and what is meant by this limitation. Further, the claim recites “the user region having the rectangular shape”. It is unclear to the Examiner what “ . . . the rectangular shape . . . “ recited in line 4 of claim 4 is referring to. For example, is it referring the “overlapping portion having a rectangular shape” or is it referring to the “ . . . set in a rectangular shape overlap . . .” or is it a new rectangular shape ? Examiner notes that grammatical revision is needed.
As to claim 5, the claim is rejected for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, the claim is rejected for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward apparatus which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “the electronic control unit is configured to recognize a user region including user in a frame-image included in the imaging-data”, “the electronic control unit is configured to extract an overlapping portion between the user region and an intrusion determination region . . .”, “the electronic control unit is configured to, . . ., calculate a depth difference between the intrusion determination region and the overlapping portion in the frame-image” and “the electronic control unit is configured to, . . . , determine that the user has intruded into the intrusion determination region” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper and/or mathematical concepts grouping (2019 PEG: mathematical relationships, formulas, calculations, and data structure). For example, a human mind could reasonably identify and recognize whether a user is present within a region from the given data (e.g. imaging-data) . The mere nominal recitation of an “electronic control unit” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a door controller” and “an electronic control unit” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Furthermore, the “a door controller” and “an electronic control unit” are recited at a high-level of generality and mount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general or generic computer. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, “a door controller” and “an electronic control unit” are merely tools being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Furthermore, the “a door controller” and “an electronic control unit” are recited at a high-level of generality and mount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general or generic computer. Additionally, these additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 7 recites similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim is not eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claims 3-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 3-4 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward
additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the limitations of claim 3 further the abstract idea.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rafii et al. (US 20110295469 A1) in view of Noda et al. (US 20190185295 A1) and further in view of Ito Tetsuji (JP 2013086615 A1).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 5 and 7, Rafii et al. discloses A door
controller comprising an electronic control unit that controls opening and closing of a door based on imaging-data, wherein: (Abstract “Time-of-flight (TOF) three-dimensional sensing systems are deployed on or in a motor vehicle to image contact zones associated with potential contact between an avoidable object and the vehicle or vehicle frame and/or remotely controllable motorized moving door or liftgate.”, and [0050] “For example, in FIG. 4A, vehicle 220 has a rear liftgate (or tailgate) 230-1 that is monitored by TOF system 200-1, whose output signal can cause opening-closing motor mechanism or the like 240-1 to retard, to halt, or to reverse motion of the liftgate.”)
the electronic control unit is configured to recognize a user region including a user in a
frame-image included in the imaging-data; (Figures 5 and 6B, and [0051] “a sideview of vehicle 220 (see FIG. 4A) with right rear door 230-5 depicted in the act of closing, e.g., sliding forward, towards an object 20-5, namely the left arm of a person. Shown in cross-hatch in the gap between the front of this door and the vehicle door frame is a contact zone 250-5 that is encompassed within the FOV 260-5. As shown in FIG. 4C. FOV 260-5 is associated with TOF system 200-5, the TOF system responsible for monitoring this contact zone. It is the function of TOF system 200-5 to detect the presence of objects, e.g., 20-5 in contact zone 250-5 before any object-door contact occurs. If an object is detected in this contact zone, TOF system 200-5 will generate a control signal to cause door moving mechanism 240-5 to retard, to halt, or to reverse movement of door 230-5.”)
the electronic control unit is configured to extract an overlapping portion between the
user region and an intrusion determination region adjacent to the door that is openable and closable; ([0051] “cross-hatch in the gap between the front of this door and the vehicle door frame is a contact zone 250-5 that is encompassed within the FOV 260-5. As shown in FIG. 4C. FOV 260-5 is associated with TOF system 200-5, the TOF system responsible for monitoring this contact zone. It is the function of TOF system 200-5 to detect the presence of objects, e.g., 20-5 in contact zone 250-5 before any object-door contact occurs. If an object is detected in this contact zone, TOF system 200-5 will generate a control signal to cause door moving mechanism 240-5 to retard, to halt, or to reverse movement of door 230-5. In a similar fashion, TOF system 200-4 monitors the contact zone associated with left rear door 230-4. If an object is detected within the contact zone associated with door 230-4, TOF system 200-4 will generate a control signal to cause mechanism 240-4 to retard, to halt, or to reverse door movement.”, [0052] “ If vehicle 220 includes sliding (as opposed to hinge-mounted) front doors, FIG. 4C depicts exemplary TOF system 200-3 with associated FOV 260-3 encompassing contact zone 250-3. If an object is detected within the contact zone associated with front door 200-3, TOF system 200-3 will generate a control signal to cause mechanism 240-3 to retard, to halt, or to reverse door movement. In similar fashion, TOF system 200-2 can be provided to guard against object contact with left front door 230-2.”, see at least [0053] and figures 5, and 6C)
the electronic control unit is configured to, when a degree of overlapping of the
overlapping portion relative to the intrusion determination region ([0071] “FIG. 6D is a gray scale Z depth image of the same portion of the contact zone, and appears to show a finger-shaped object intruding near the upper third of the interior door handle. FIG. 6E represents a cross-section of Z depth data acquired from a single row of pixel detectors 140 in sensor array 130, and clearly shows a depth anomaly consistent with an object intruding into the monitored space. Stated differently, the anomaly is consistent with a sudden discontinuity in Z depth values in the space adjacent the upper third of the interior door handle.”) calculate a depth difference between the intrusion determination region and the overlapping portion in the frame-image; (Figure 5, [0066] “If desired, this contact zone can include the three-dimensional volume occupied by the relevant door at all possible door locations, between fully closed and fully open. At method steps 370, the algorithm determines whether obstacles determined to be present at step 360 are found within the contact zone associated with the relevant door. This determination preferably is made by comparing the three dimensional contact zone associated with the door, with the three-dimensional image of obstacles determined at step 360.”, and see at least [0058])
the electronic control unit is configured to, (Figures 5 and 6D, [0051] “cross-hatch in the gap between the front of this door and the vehicle door frame is a contact zone 250-5 that is encompassed within the FOV 260-5. As shown in FIG. 4C. FOV 260-5 is associated with TOF system 200-5, the TOF system responsible for monitoring this contact zone. It is the function of TOF system 200-5 to detect the presence of objects, e.g., 20-5 in contact zone 250-5 before any object-door contact occurs. If an object is detected in this contact zone, TOF system 200-5 will generate a control signal to cause door moving mechanism 240-5 to retard, to halt, or to reverse movement of door 230-5. In a similar fashion, TOF system 200-4 monitors the contact zone associated with left rear door 230-4. If an object is detected within the contact zone associated with door 230-4, TOF system 200-4 will generate a control signal to cause mechanism 240-4 to retard, to halt, or to reverse door movement.”, and see at least [0066])
Rafii et al. fails to explicitly disclose the electronic control unit is configured to, when a
degree of overlapping of the overlapping portion relative to the intrusion determination region becomes equal to or higher than a predetermined degree, calculate a
Noda et al. teaches when a degree of overlapping of the overlapping portion relative to
the intrusion determination region becomes equal to or higher than a predetermined degree, ([0091] “In addition, in a case where a strength of the brightness gradient of each pixel is used to detect various boundaries, the user detector 22b may calculate the cumulative pixel value for each detection area image as described above to determine that various boundaries are broken in a case where there is a column of which the calculated cumulative pixel value is less than a predetermined threshold. Alternatively, in a case where the ratio of the column of which the cumulative pixel value is less than the predetermined threshold becomes equal to or more than the predetermined threshold (for example, 5% or more), it may be determined that various boundaries are broken. Further, the method using the threshold is applicable even to a case where the edges of a person and an object are detected in order to detect various boundaries, and the captured image is binarized.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Rafii et al. to incorporate a threshold for boundary intrusion detection as taught by Noda et al. for the purpose of allowing the detection system “determine that various boundary are broken”. ([0091], Noda et al.)
However, Rafii et al. in combination with Noda et al. fails to explicitly disclose the electronic control unit is configured to, when the
Ito Tetsuji teaches when the ([0020] “the obstacle detection sensor 30 calculates the distance from the ultrasonic sensor 30 to the obstacle using the ultrasonic wave received by the wave receiver. In addition, when the calculated distance to the obstacle is equal to … a predetermined threshold, the obstacle detection sensor 30 includes information indicating that the obstacle is detected in the obstacle information and outputs the obstacle information to the control unit 1”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Rafii et al. in combination with Noda et al. to incorporate a distance threshold as taught by Ito Tetsuji for the purpose of accurately determining an object is present within an intrusion zone.
With the additional limitation of claim 5, Rafii et al. discloses a door controller configured to
control the opening and closing of the door based on the imaging-data; (Figures 5 and 6B, [0050] “Having generally described suitable generic TOF systems 200, FIG. 4A is a plan X-ray view showing several such TOF systems 200 disposed at various locations in or on a motor vehicle 220 to monitor respective contact zones. For example, in FIG. 4A, vehicle 220 has a rear liftgate (or tailgate) 230-1 that is monitored by TOF system 200-1, whose output signal can cause opening-closing motor mechanism or the like 240-1 to retard, to halt, or to reverse motion of the liftgate”, and [0051] “a sideview of vehicle 220 (see FIG. 4A) with right rear door 230-5 depicted in the act of closing, e.g., sliding forward, towards an object 20-5, namely the left arm of a person. Shown in cross-hatch in the gap between the front of this door and the vehicle door frame is a contact zone 250-5 that is encompassed within the FOV 260-5. As shown in FIG. 4C. FOV 260-5 is associated with TOF system 200-5, the TOF system responsible for monitoring this contact zone. It is the function of TOF system 200-5 to detect the presence of objects, e.g., 20-5 in contact zone 250-5 before any object-door contact occurs. If an object is detected in this contact zone, TOF system 200-5 will generate a control signal to cause door moving mechanism 240-5 to retard, to halt, or to reverse movement of door 230-5.”)
Regarding claim 2, Rafii et al. in view of Noda et al. and Ito Tetsuji discloses The door
controller according to claim 1,
Rafii et al. discloses wherein the electronic control unit is configured to, when the electronic control unit determines that the user has intruded into the intrusion determination region, control a driving unit that drives the door so as to restrict opening and closing actions of the door. ([0050] “Having generally described suitable generic TOF systems 200, FIG. 4A is a plan X-ray view showing several such TOF systems 200 disposed at various locations in or on a motor vehicle 220 to monitor respective contact zones. For example, in FIG. 4A, vehicle 220 has a rear liftgate (or tailgate) 230-1 that is monitored by TOF system 200-1, whose output signal can cause opening-closing motor mechanism or the like 240-1 to retard, to halt, or to reverse motion of the liftgate”, and [0051] “a sideview of vehicle 220 (see FIG. 4A) with right rear door 230-5 depicted in the act of closing, e.g., sliding forward, towards an object 20-5, namely the left arm of a person. Shown in cross-hatch in the gap between the front of this door and the vehicle door frame is a contact zone 250-5 that is encompassed within the FOV 260-5. As shown in FIG. 4C. FOV 260-5 is associated with TOF system 200-5, the TOF system responsible for monitoring this contact zone. It is the function of TOF system 200-5 to detect the presence of objects, e.g., 20-5 in contact zone 250-5 before any object-door contact occurs. If an object is detected in this contact zone, TOF system 200-5 will generate a control signal to cause door moving mechanism 240-5 to retard, to halt, or to reverse movement of door 230-5.”)
Regarding claim 3, as best understood by the Examiner, Rafii et al. in view of Noda et al. and
Ito Tetsuji discloses The door controller according to claim 1,
Rafii et al. discloses wherein the electronic control unit is configured to calculate the depth difference using the frame-image in which the intrusion determination region in a state where the overlapping portion is not present is imaged as a reference frame, and (Abstract “ If present, a control signal issues to halt or reverse the mechanism moving the door. A stored database preferably includes a depth image of the contact zone absent any object, an image of the door, and volume of the door. Database images are compared to newly acquired depth images to identify pixel sensors whose depth values are statistically unlikely to represent background or the door. Pixels within the contact zone so identified are an object, and the control signal is issued.”, [0066] “the relevant door contact zone will have been determined a priori and stored in memory, e.g., memory 170. If desired, this contact zone can include the three-dimensional volume occupied by the relevant door at all possible door locations, between fully closed and fully open. At method steps 370, the algorithm determines whether obstacles determined to be present at step 360 are found within the contact zone associated with the relevant door. This determination preferably is made by comparing the three dimensional contact zone associated with the door, with the three-dimensional image of obstacles determined at step 360.”)
Noda et al. teaches based on a result of a comparison between the reference frame and the overlapping portion of which the degree of overlapping is equal to or higher than the predetermined degree. ([0091] “In addition, in a case where a strength of the brightness gradient of each pixel is used to detect various boundaries, the user detector 22b may calculate the cumulative pixel value for each detection area image as described above to determine that various boundaries are broken in a case where there is a column of which the calculated cumulative pixel value is less than a predetermined threshold. Alternatively, in a case where the ratio of the column of which the cumulative pixel value is less than the predetermined threshold becomes equal to or more than the predetermined threshold (for example, 5% or more), it may be determined that various boundaries are broken. Further, the method using the threshold is applicable even to a case where the edges of a person and an object are detected in order to detect various boundaries, and the captured image is binarized.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Rafii et al. in combination with Noda et al. and Ito Tetsuji to incorporate the teachings of Noda et al. for the same reasons stated in the motivation statement of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Raffi et al. in view of Noda et al. and Ito Tetsuji discloses The vehicle
according to claim 5,
Rafii et al. discloses wherein the intrusion determination region is appropriately changeable according to an imaging range based on a mounting position of the camera. ([0054] “each protected door is associated with a contact zone that is covered by at least one TOF system whose three-dimensional FOV is adequately wide to image and detect an object potentially within the contact zone. Ideally, the FOV of each TOF system 200 approximates a three-dimensional cone. In practice a FOV encompassing about 148.degree. measured diagonally provides sufficient imaging coverage, although preferably a wider FOV, perhaps about 160.degree., would provide even wider coverage. For reasons of economy, it is preferred that each TOF system 200 be stationary. However one could instead deploy some or all TOF systems 200 on a mechanically rotatable platform. Such mechanical rotation would enable a greater FOV to be imaged, thus protecting a wider contact zone.”, [0059] “Specifics of the algorithm may vary depending upon whether TOF system 200 is mounted in a stationary position on or in the vehicle, or is mounted on the moving door itself. Referring now to FIG. 5, at step 300 of exemplary algorithm 210, TOF system 200 acquires a frame of Z or depth data encompassing the FOV, which as noted includes the relevant contact zone. Acquisition of data need not occur until the relevant door is opened, for example, as determined by a door position sensor associated with vehicle 220. FIG. 6B is an example of such a depth image.”, [0060] “of three-dimensional depth data (e.g., DATA') acquired by TOF system 200 from TOF system coordinates to real-world door coordinates to real-world coordinates, as the relative position of the TOF system to the door is known. Preferably such coordinate conversion is an optimization that eliminates a need to recognize the door itself at each acquired data frame. Method step 310 is optional but might be invoked when the TOF system is also is used to view objects in real world outside the vehicle. For example, if the TOF system is mounted on the rear of the vehicle, perhaps to image liftgate operation, the TOF system may also be used as a backup sensor to detect obstacles behind the vehicles as it moves rearward. In such case, conversion from TOF system coordinates to real-world coordinates is useful in detecting the ground and obstacles or objects above the ground.”, [0076] “The boundaries of the mask can be obtained by a process of calibration or with knowledge of the position of the TOF system relative to its mounting fixture. Preferably during a calibration process, a base image is acquired of the door after the TOF system is installed.”, and see at least figure 4B-4C)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights