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 .
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 4 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.
Specifically, the phrase " preferably less than 2 m " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation/phrase is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are directed to “A computer program” which under a broadest reasonable interpretation can be interpreted as software (software per se). The court has found that software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment, does not fall within any statutory category. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. (See MPEP 2106.03)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-6, 8-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al., US 20200081134 A1 (herein, Wheeler) and in view of Zhao et al., US 20230047094 A1 (herein, Zhao).
Regarding Claim 1, Wheeler discloses, an image processing method for determining a travel speed of a vehicle (2) in a monitoring region (5), wherein a monitoring scene (6) with at least one vehicle (2) may be arranged in the monitoring region (5) (FIG. 7 and ¶[0080] – “…the image processing submodule 930 tracks features in the image data to determine a velocity of the vehicle. The image processing submodule 930 identifies features in a first frame of the image data and then identifies features in a second frame of the image data….”),
wherein at least a first image of the monitoring scene (6) is detected, wherein a first time stamp is assigned to the first image, and wherein a second image of the monitoring scene (6) is detected, wherein a second time stamp is assigned to the second image (100) (¶[0080] – “…The two frames may have different timestamps…”),
wherein a first polyhedron (8) is derived from the first image and a second polyhedron (8) is derived from the second image, wherein the first and the second polyhedron each represent the vehicle (2) (200) (¶[0080] – “…The image processing submodule 930 calculates a displacement of the camera between the first frame and second frame with 3D bundle adjustment techniques that map 3D positions of one or more correspondences in the frames with stereo geometry….”),
wherein a distance traveled by the vehicle (2) in the monitoring region (5) between the time stamps is established on the basis of the vehicle size information and the polyhedrons (8), wherein the vehicle speed is established on the basis of the distance and the time stamp (500) (¶[0091] – “…he system 120 determines a first velocity of the vehicle based on the location data, e.g., via the GNSS processing submodule 910. The system 120 may calculate the first velocity by considering two sets of global coordinates. The system 120 can calculate a distance (Euclidean or spherical) with the two sets of global coordinates and divide the distance by a time differential between the two sets to achieve the first velocity….”).
Wheeler discloses the vehicle and polyhedron but does not disclose, wherein a vehicle size information is determined for the first polyhedron and/or for the second polyhedron (300).
However, Zhao teaches, wherein a vehicle size information is determined for the first polyhedron and/or for the second polyhedron (300) (FIGS. 5 and 7 and ¶[0004] – “…a vehicle equipped with an image processing apparatus may output information such as an orientation angle and dimensions of the vehicle in a vehicle body coordinate system based on the complete vehicle in the image by using a neural network, to locate a 3D outer bounding box of the vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the method as disclosed by Wheeler with the vehicle size information determined by the polyhedron and corresponding coordinates as taught by Zhao. Doing so, the vehicle size information provides additional information so as to better control and navigate the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Wheeler further discloses, wherein the polyhedrons (8) enclose the vehicle (2) (Zhao, FIGS. 5 and 7 illustrate the vehicle enclosed by the polyhedron).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Wheeler further discloses, wherein the polyhedrons (8) are determined in p3D coordinates (Zhao, FIG. 7 illustrate the polyhedron coordinates).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Wheeler but does not specifically disclose wherein the distance of the vehicle (2) between the two images is configured to be less than 5m. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have taken the two images at a distance of less than 5m, since applicant has not disclosed that such a distance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with at distances beyond 5m .
Regarding Claim 5, modified Wheeler further discloses, wherein the vehicle size information is determined assuming a standard size of the vehicle (2) (Both Wheeler and Zhao in FIG. 7 illustrate a standard size vehicle).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Wheeler further discloses, wherein a vehicle class of the vehicle (2) is determined and the vehicle size information is determined assuming a standard size of the vehicle class (FIG. 7 illustrates the class of a vehicle being a sedan of standard size).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Wheeler discloses the vehicle but does not disclose, wherein the vehicle size information is estimated from the images.
However, Zhao teaches, wherein the vehicle size information is estimated from the images (FIG. 7 and ¶[0108] – “… various scenarios in which a 3D outer bounding box of a rigid body in an ambient environment needs to be located. The rigid body is an object whose shape and size remain unchanged and whose relative locations of internal points remain unchanged during motion and after force action. The rigid body may be specifically represented as a vehicle,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the method as disclosed by modified Wheeler with the vehicle size estimated from the images as taught by Zhao. Doing so, the vehicle size information provides additional information so as to better control and navigate the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Wheeler further discloses, wherein the distance traveled is determined by converting the pixel offset of the polyhedrons (8) in the images (Claim 24 – “…calculating an optical flow by determining a difference in position of each feature of the plurality of features between the first frame and the second frame, wherein the optical flow describes a relative velocity of each pixel in the image data between the first frame and the second frame;…” i.e. – relative velocity of each pixel has an offset).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Wheeler further discloses, a computer program, wherein the computer program is configured and/or arranged to execute, apply and/or implement in its execution the image processing method according to claim 1 (¶[0125] – “…a software module is implemented with a computer program product comprising a computer-readable medium containing computer program code, which can be executed by a computer processor for performing any or all of the steps,”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Wheeler further discloses, an image processing device (1) configured to implement the image processing method according to claim 1 (¶[0078] – “…image processing submodule 930 calculates a velocity of the vehicle based on the image data…”), and further comprising:
an input interface (3) for transferring the images from a camera (4), wherein a time stamp is assigned to the images (¶[0080] – “…a single camera—or two frames that constitute a stereoscopic image pair—taken at substantially the same point in time from two cameras. The features may be identified by applying one or more image kernels the frames, e.g., wherein the features may be an outline of the image, one or more objects (moving or fixed), etc. The image processing submodule 930 establishes an image correspondence…”),
a determination apparatus (7) for determining the polyhedrons (8) and the vehicle size information (¶[0080] – “…The image processing submodule 930 calculates a displacement of the camera between the first frame and second frame with 3D bundle adjustment techniques that map 3D positions of one or more correspondences in the frames with stereo geometry…”), and
an evaluation apparatus (15) for determining the vehicle speed by establishing the distance of the vehicle (2) in the monitoring region (5) between the images and calculating the time stamp of the images (¶[0070] – “…an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) to obtain relative motion accuracy. However, IMU provides a differential measurement. The HD map system can integrate (once resulting in velocity and/or twice resulting in relative position) differential measurements received from IMU to get a relative path of the vehicle…”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al., US 20200081134 A1 (herein, Wheeler), in view of Zhao et al., US 20230047094 A1 (herein, Zhao), and in further view of Takada et al., US 20200189617 A1 (herein, Takada).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Wheeler further discloses a database (¶[0121] – “…database…”) but does not disclose, wherein the vehicle model of the vehicle (2) is determined, wherein the vehicle size information is queried from a database (13) on the basis of the vehicle model.
However, Takada teaches, wherein the vehicle model of the vehicle (2) is determined, wherein the vehicle size information is queried from a database (13) on the basis of the vehicle model (FIG. 12 and ¶[0057] – “…the manual driving switching information database 101 stores: host vehicle information at the time of occurrence of an event for switching from the autonomous driving to the manual driving (information including: vehicle size class (which may be information that is any one of displacement, wheelbase, body length, and body width);…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the method as disclosed by modified Wheeler with the vehicle size information queried from the database as taught by Takada. Doing so, the vehicle size information provides additional information so as to better control and navigate the vehicle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al., US 20200081134 A1 (herein, Wheeler) and in view of Zhao et al., US 20230047094 A1 (herein, Zhao), and in further view of US 20200082180 A1 (herein, Wang).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Wheeler discloses polyhedrons, distance traveled, and polyhedron but does not disclose, wherein a local pseudo- calibration with a calibration matrix is carried out for each of the polyhedrons (8), wherein the distance traveled is determined on the basis of the calibration matrices and the vehicle size information (¶[0057] – “…the 3D space and obtain the 3D absolute attributes of an object in the camera 3D coordinate space, including the object's height, width, length, distance to the camera, and orientation. Directly lifting the 2D information to the 3D coordinate space is highly challenging in the autonomous driving environment; because, 1) the fitting module 214 cannot use a flat-ground assumption as the roadway in a typical driving environment always has slopes (ups and downs), and 2) the initial camera extrinsic matrices are not always reliable as severe vibrations may occur during driving. To solve the first issue, the fitting module 214 can use a pre-calculated or previously obtained terrain map containing accurate global positioning system (GPS) locations with the height of the terrain from which the fitting module 214 can obtain accurate geographical information associated with the input images. To solve the second issue, the fitting module 214 can use the output of an online calibration module,…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the method as disclosed by modified Wheeler with pseudo-calibration with a calibration matrix as taught by Wang. Doing so, provides calibration and thus accuracy of the information regarding the vehicle size.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights