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 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.
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: measurement unit, detection unit and determination unit in claims 1-2 and 19; tracking unit in claim 4; vehicle type determination unit in claims 5-6; measuring unit in claim 6; providing unit, and vehicle size determination unit in claim 8; providing /unit in claims 10 and 14.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14, 18-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-10, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lehning (US2013/0162462) in view of Fang et al. (CN109614889) and Sakai (JP2019185347).
To claim 1, Lehning teach an information generation device comprising:
a processor programmed to:
obtain, from a radar sensor (1 of Fig. 1), a plurality of measurement points;
cluster the measurement points that are obtained from a reflected wave of a transmission wave applied to a road by the radar sensor, in a three-dimensional space (obvious in high-resolution automotive and imaging radar) composed of a distance from the radar sensor, a direction based on the radar sensor, and a speed of each of the measurement points (Figs. 1-3; paragraphs 0021, 0036, 0041-0042, 0060, 0070);
obtain a plurality of measurement results based on clusters of the measurement points by performing a measurement of a vehicle size with respect to a same traveling vehicle a plurality of times (paragraphs 0042, the vehicle traveling through the radar field is detected over the duration of transit at a quantity of measurement points, and direct measurement data (e.g., speed, position angle, distance) are derived. This procedure, known as tracking, allows the respective derived direct measurement data to be compared with one another and checked for consistency, i.e., for the likelihood that the direct measurement data are correct).
But, Lehning do not expressly disclose cluster the measurement points that are obtained from a reflected wave of a transmission wave applied to a road by the radar sensor, in a three-dimensional space; detect an accuracy of each of the plurality of measurement results; and determine a vehicle size of the traveling vehicle from the plurality of measurement results on the basis of the accuracies, wherein the accuracy is detected on the basis of a quantity of the measurement points included in the clusters, such that the quantity of the measurement points is positively correlated with the accuracy.
In light of Lehning’s utility in vehicle object detection, Fang teach an object detection apparatus using lidar to cluster the measurement points that are obtained from a reflected wave of a transmission wave applied to a road by the radar sensor, in a three-dimensional space (paragraph 0008, 0039); obtain a plurality of measurement results based on clusters of the measurement points by performing a measurement of a vehicle size with respect to a same traveling vehicle a plurality of times (paragraph 0042, vehicle to be object detected; Fig. 10, paragraphs 0039, 0101, vehicle size detected); wherein the accuracy is detected on the basis of a quantity of the measurement points included in the clusters, such that the quantity of the measurement points is positively correlated with the accuracy (paragraphs 0079-0080).
In further detection accuracy of Fang, Sakai teach an object detection apparatus using lidar to cluster the measurement points that are obtained from a reflected wave of a transmission wave applied to a road by the radar sensor, in a three-dimensional space; obtain a plurality of measurement results based on clusters of the measurement points by performing a measurement of a vehicle size with respect to a same traveling vehicle a plurality of times (Figs. 3, 20; paragraphs 0132-0134, object tracking with detected clusters in 3D space); detect an accuracy of each of the plurality of measurement results (paragraphs 0049, 0058, 0108); and determine a vehicle size of the traveling vehicle from the plurality of measurement results on the basis of the accuracies (paragraphs 0130, 0138, tracking feature such as size is calculated based on detection accuracy of cluster point cloud), wherein the accuracy is detected on the basis of a quantity of the measurement points included in the clusters, such that the quantity of the measurement points is positively correlated with the accuracy (paragraphs 0029-0031, higher number of laser beams emitted results higher resolution; paragraph 0120, the higher the resolution of the cluster point cloud the higher the detection accuracy; paragraph 0050, number of levels representing the accuracy of cluster point cloud detection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Fang and Sakai into the apparatus of Lehning, in order to implement LIDAR detection for higher detection with high resolution.
To claim 18, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach an information generation method (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 19, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having, stored therein, a computer program for causing a computer to operate as an information generation device (as explained in response to claim 1 above).
To claim 2, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach claim 1.
Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach wherein the processor is programmed to determine, as the vehicle size, a measurement result of which the accuracy is highest among the plurality of measurement results (Sakai, Figs. 13A-C, paragraphs 0097, 0104-0108, obviously measurement result with highest result would be taken, which is also a well-known practice in the art, hence Official Notice is also taken).
To claim 3, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach claim 1.
Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach wherein the plurality of measurement results are measurement results measured at a plurality of positions, respectively (Lehning, paragraphs 0041-0042; Sakai, paragraphs 0134-0135).
To claim 4, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach claim 3.
Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach wherein the processor is programmed to judge vehicles detected at the plurality of positions to be the same traveling vehicle (Sakai, paragraphs 0150, 0176-0178).
To claim 8, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach claim 1.
Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach wherein the processor is programmed to provide first information based on the vehicle size (Sakai, paragraph 0003).
To claim 9, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach claim 8.
Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach wherein the first information is further based on a position of the traveling vehicle (Lehning, paragraphs 0041-0044).
To claim 10, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach claim 9.
Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach wherein the processor is programmed to further provide second information indicating a measurement time of the position (Lehning, paragraphs 0033, 0067).
Claim(s) 5-7, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehning (US2013/0162462) in view of Fang et al. (CN109614889), Sakai (JP2019185347) and Haruyama et al. (JP2004005726).
To claim 5, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach claim 1.
Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach wherein the processor is programmed to determine a vehicle type of the traveling vehicle on the basis of the vehicle size (Sakai, obvious in paragraph 0003).
In further said obviousness, Haruyama teach determining a vehicle type of the traveling vehicle on the basis of the vehicle size (paragraphs 0001, 0005), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus of Lehning, Fang and Sakai, in order to expand feature detection.
To claim 6, Lehning, Fang, Sakai and Haruyama teach claim 5.
Lehning, Fang, Sakai and Haruyama teach wherein the processor is programmed to measure a traffic flow for each vehicle type on the basis of the vehicle type (Haruvama, abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0009).
To claim 7, Lehning, Fang, Sakai and Haruyama teach claim 6.
Lehning, Fang, Sakai and Haruyama teach wherein the traffic flow for each vehicle type includes the number of vehicles for each vehicle type (Haruvama, paragraphs 0005, 0011, 0019, 0028, 0030).
To claim 11, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach claim 8.
Haruyama teach wherein the first information includes inter-vehicle data with respect to a first traveling vehicle and a second traveling vehicle traveling behind the first traveling vehicle, the vehicle size indicates at least a vehicle length, and the inter-vehicle data is obtained at least by using the vehicle length indicated by the vehicle size of the first traveling vehicle (paragraph 0017), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus of Lehning, Fang and Sakai, in order to expand feature detection.
To claim 12, Lehning, Fang, Sakai and Haruyama teach claim 11.
Lehning, Fang, Sakai and Haruyama teach wherein the inter-vehicle data includes at least one of an inter-vehicle distance and an inter-vehicle time length (Haruyama, paragraphs 0005-0006, 0017, 0030).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehning (US2013/0162462) in view of Fang et al. (CN109614889), Sakai (JP2019185347), Haruyama et al. (JP2004005726) and Onoda et al. (JPH1186192).
To claim 13, Lehning, Fang, Sakai and Haruyama teach claim 11.
But, Lehning, Fang, Sakai and Haruyama do not expressly disclose wherein the first information is for being provided to a vehicle that is going to enter a lane on which the first traveling vehicle and the second traveling vehicle are traveling.
Onoda teach wherein the first information is for being provided to a vehicle that is going to enter a lane on which the first traveling vehicle and the second traveling vehicle are traveling (Figs. 1, 11, 17-18; paragraphs 0027, 0035-0041), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus of Lehning, Fang, Sakai and Haruyama, in order to provide traffic information to entering vehicles.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehning (US2013/0162462) in view of Fang et al. (CN109614889), Sakai (JP2019185347) and Onoda et al. (JPH1186192).
To claim 14, Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach claim 1.
Lehning, Fang and Sakai teach wherein the vehicle size indicates at least a vehicle length, the processor is programmed to provide first information based on the vehicle length indicated by the vehicle size and a position of the traveling vehicle (as explained in response to claim 1 above), but Lehning, Fang and Sakai do not expressly disclose the first information is for being provided to another vehicle.
Onoda teach capturing and detecting position of a vehicle and measuring size of the vehicle for providing information to another vehicle (paragraphs 0027, 0035-0041), which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the apparatus of Lehning, Fang and Sakai, in order to provide traffic information to driver traveling near a merging intersection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIYU LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2837. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays: 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Stephen R Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
ZHIYU . LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2669
/ZHIYU LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665 April 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights