DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 8 May 2025.
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 § 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, 3, and 4 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.
Claim 1 recites “the controller does not correct the angle of the optical axis when a specific condition is met, and corrects the angle of the optical axis when the specific condition is not met. “However, the claim does not clearly identify what the “specific condition” is. Because the “specific condition” controls whether the angle of the optical axis is corrected or not corrected, the scope of the claimed correction control depends on this condition. Without clearly identifying the condition, it is unclear what circumstances cause the controller to correct the angle of the optical axis and what circumstances cause the controller to not correct the angle of the optical axis. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 1 are unclear. For examination purposes the examiner will interpret the “specific condition” to mean a predetermined condition under which image information corresponding to a preset region associated with part of the moving body is excluded from processing.
Claim 3 recites that “the specific condition includes a condition that the moving body is in operation”. However, the phrase “in operation” does not clearly define what type or kind of operation of the moving body is being claimed. It is unclear whether “in operation” refers to the moving body traveling, the engine operating, the moving body being powered on, a cargo handling operation being performed, the obstacle detection device operating, or another operational state. Because the claim does not clearly identify which operation satisfies the recited condition, the scope of the claimed “specific condition” is unclear. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 3 are unclear. For examination purpose the examiner will interpret the “in operation” to mean the moving body being in a traveling state.
Claim 4 recites that “the specific condition includes a condition that vibration occurring in the moving body is not a steady-state vibration.” However, when read with Claim 1, it is unclear how the recited vibration condition corresponds to the controller correcting or not correcting the angle of the optical axis. Claim 1 recites that the controller does not correct the angle when the specific condition is met and corrects the angle when the specific condition is not met. Claim 4 then defines the specific condition using the negative phrase “is not a steady-state vibration.” As a result, it is unclear whether the controller does not correct the angle when non-steady-state vibration is present, corrects the angle when non-steady-state vibration is absent, or operates based on some other vibration state. Therefore, the scope of the claimed correction control in Claim 4 is unclear. For examination purpose the examiner will interpret the “controller does not correct the angle when non-steady-state vibration is present, corrects the angle when non-steady-state vibration is absent, or operates based on some other vibration state” to mean that the controller does not correct the angle of the optical axis when dynamic vibration occurring in the moving body is present and corrects the angle of the optical axis when such dynamic vibration is not present.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 20230394847A1) in view of Ishizaki (JP2022012811A).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
Suzuki discloses an obstacle detection device (Fig. 2, item 100) mounted on a moving body, the obstacle detection device comprising (see Suzuki, para. 0028), a camera (item 31); and a controller (item 31)
wherein the controller obtains a captured image from the camera (Suzuki discloses obtaining image information from the camera and processing image signals received from the image capturing unit to perform obstacle determination (see Suzuki, para.0028-0029, 0035 and 36)); the controller calculates a position of an obstacle based on a feature portion of the captured image and an angle of an optical axis of the camera (Suzuki discloses detecting an obstacle including determining position and height information from image information (see Suzuki, para. 0044-0046). Suzuki further discloses using information related to the optical axis of the camera and the positional relationship between the camera, obstacle, and ground surface, wherein the angle of the optical axis relative to the horizontal direction may be obtained and used for determination processing (see Suzuki, para. 0059-0062). Suzuki further discloses determining whether the moving body and obstacle contact one another based on obstacle position, obstacle height, and camera information (see Suzuki, para. 0065-0068). However, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose that the controller does not correct the angle of the optical axis when a specific condition is met and corrects the angle of the optical axis when the specific condition is not met.
But, in the same field of endeavor Ishizaki discloses the controller does not correct the angle of the optical axis when a specific condition is met (see para. 0023, 0037-0041 and Fig. 3, 5-7 and 9, Ishizaki teaches deriving feature points from the captured image, converting coordinates in a camera coordinate system into real-space/world coordinates, and detecting the position of an obstacle based on the converted coordinates) and corrects the angle of the optical axis when the specific condition is not met (see para. 0023, 0037-0041 and Fig. 3, 5-7 and 9).
Ishizaki further discloses setting, in advance, a non-detection region within the detectable region of the sensor corresponding to an area where part of the moving body exists and determining that no obstacle exists in the non-detection region regardless of the sensor detection result (see para. 0036-0037 and Fig. 5-7). Thus, when the predetermined condition is met, feature-point information corresponding to the preset region is deleted or not used for obstacle extraction, and when the predetermined condition is not met, obstacle detection processing proceeds using the captured image information.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Suzuki’s obstacle detection device to include Ishizaki’s preset non-detection-region processing, so that a portion of the moving body appearing within the camera’s detectable region is not treated as an obstacle.
The motivation for the combination is to suppress false obstacle detection caused by part of the moving body entering the camera’s field of view, while still allowing obstacles outside the non-detection region to be detected. This would improve the reliability of Suzuki’s obstacle detection and contact determination processing by avoiding unnecessary warning or control actions caused by the moving body’s own structure.
This conclusion is reached because Ishizaki expressly recognizes that depending on the installation position of the sensor, part of the moving body may enter the detectable region and may be incorrectly detected as an obstacle, and Ishizaki solves that problem by setting a preset non-detection region and excluding corresponding image information from obstacle extraction.
Accordingly, Suzuki in view of Ishizaki teaches or suggests the claimed obstacle detection device mounted on a moving body, including a camera and a controller that obtains a captured image from the camera and calculates a position of an obstacle based on a feature portion of the captured image and information related to the optical axis direction of the camera, with Ishizaki providing conditional processing in which selected feature-point information is not used when a predetermined condition is met (because Ishizaki expressly recognizes that part of the moving body may enter the detectable region of the sensor and may be incorrectly detected as an obstacle, and solves this problem by setting a preset non-detection region and excluding corresponding feature-point information from obstacle extraction (see para. 0036-0037 and Fig. 5-7).)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Ishizaki, and further in view of Lessmann et al. (Lessmann), (EP3038011B1).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki in view of Ishizaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed for claim 1, as set forth above. Suzuki-Ishizaki discloses the camera is a monocular camera, and the optical axis extends in a direction in which the optical axis intersects a ground surface on which the moving body travels (Suzuki, as applied to claim 1, discloses an obstacle detection apparatus mounted on a movable body, such as a vehicle, including a camera unit and processing based on the optical-axis direction of the camera unit and the positional relationship between the camera unit, the vehicle body, the ground surface, and the obstacle (see Suzuki, para. 0059-0062 and 0065-0068). Suzuki therefore discloses or suggests that the optical axis of the camera extends in a direction toward the ground surface on which the movable body travels). However, Suzuki in view of Ishizaki does not expressly disclose that the camera is a monocular camera.
But, in same field of endeavor, Lessmann discloses monocular camera (Lessmann teaches a device for detecting and tracking an object from a motor vehicle using a monocular imaging device arranged at a predetermined height above the road level, where images of the vehicle surroundings are captured and processed by an image processing system (see Lessmann, para. 0008-0011, 0025-0028). Lessmann further discloses a device including a monocular imaging device mounted on a motor vehicle and arranged above the roadway plane (see Lessmann, claim 13 and Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Lessmann’s monocular imaging device as the camera in Suzuki’s obstacle detection apparatus.
The motivation for the combination is to provide a simpler camera arrangement for vehicle obstacle detection while still allowing image-based detection while still allowing image-based detection of objects around the vehicle. A monocular camera would reduce system complexity and cost compared with multi-camera or stereo-camera arrangements while still providing image information suitable for obstacle detection.
This conclusion is reached because Lessmann expressly teaches object detection and tracking using a monocular imaging device mounted on a vehicle and demonstrates that vehicle surroundings may be reliably processed without requiring multiple cameras, thereby reducing imaging complexity while maintaining obstacle detection capability.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Ishizaki, and further in view of Hirooka (US20200166641A1).
Regarding claim 3, Suzuki in view of Ishizaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed for claim 1, as set forth above. Suzuki-Ishizaki discloses the specific condition includes a condition that the moving body is in operation.
Suzuki-Ishizaki do not expressly disclose that the specific condition includes a condition that the moving body is in operation.
But in the same field of endeavor, Hirooka discloses that the specific condition includes a condition that the moving body is in operation (Hirooka teaches an image display apparatus mounted on a vehicle including cameras, displays, and an ECU configured to perform image processing for images captured by vehicle-mounted cameras. Hirooka further discloses that a CMS mode is adjustable before the vehicle starts moving but that mode change during traveling is not permitted (see Hirooka, para. 0053 – 0054 and Fig. 6). Hirooka therefore discloses controlling whether image/camera-related adjustment processing is permitted depending on whether the moving body is operating or traveling).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki’s obstacle detection device, as modified by Ishizaki, so that the specific condition includes a condition that the moving body is in operation, as taught by Hirooka.
The motivation for the combination is to prevent image/camera-related adjustment or processing from being changed while the vehicle is operating or traveling, thereby avoiding unstable or unreliable display/detection processing during vehicle operation.
This conclusion is reached because Hirooka expressly recognizes that image-related adjustments is desirable before vehicle movement but restricts adjustment during vehicle travel to maintain stable operation of the camera/display processing system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Ishizaki, further in view of Hirooka, and further in view of KR102438705B1 (corresponding to US2 0230244834A1), (Kwon).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Ishizaki and further in view of Hirooka discloses the invention substantially as claimed for claim 3, as set forth above. Suzuki, Ishizaki, and Hirooka does not expressly disclose the moving body includes an engine, and the specific condition includes a condition includes a condition that vibration occurring in the moving body is not a steady-state vibration.
But, in the same field of endeavor, KR102438705B1 (Kwon) discloses the moving body includes an engine, (Kwon teaches an image processing device mounted on a moving body, such as a two-wheeled vehicle, in which vibration occurs during operation of the vehicle, particularly when traveling on uneven road surfaces. The reference discloses detecting motion and vibration in three-dimensional space using a sensing unit including a gyro sensor and generating optical-axis correction information of a camera module based on the detected vibration (see KR102438705B1 (Kwon), para. 0013, 0018-0020, and Fig. 1-3).
KR102438705B1 (Kwon) further discloses and the specific condition includes a condition includes a condition that vibration occurring in the moving body is not a steady-state vibration (Kwon discloses that vibration occurring during vehicle operation is dynamic and varies depending on driving conditions and that image correction processing is performed in response to detected vibration conditions (see KR102438705B1 (Kwon), para. 0013, 0019-0020 and 0029).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki’s obstacle detection device, as modified by Ishizaki and Hirooka, to account for vibration occurring in the moving body during operation, as taught by KR102438705B1 (Kwon), and to treat such vibration as a condition affecting image-based processing.
The motivation for the combination is to improve the accuracy of camera-based detection and processing in the presence of vibration during operation of the moving body.
This conclusion is reached because KR102438705B1 (Kwon) expressly recognizes that vibration generated during vehicle travel degrades image quality and obstacle-related image processing and solves that problem by detecting vibration and generating optical-axis correction information based on the detected vibration condition.
Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “vibration that is not a steady-state vibration” as including dynamic vibration occurring during operation of the moving body, Suzuki in view of Ishizaki, Hirooka, and KR102438705B1 (Kwon) teaches or suggests the obstacle detection device of claim 4, wherein the moving body includes an engine and the specific condition includes a condition that vibration occurring in the moving body is not a steady-state vibration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAIBAV REDDY MALPEDDI whose telephone number is (571)270-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/VAIBAV REDDY MALPEDDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights