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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Art Unit – Location
The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO may have changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2682.
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:
Image capture unit in claims 1 and 13
GPS unit in claim 13
Data packaging unit in claims 1 and 13
Data transmission/reception unit in claim 13
Display unit in claims 1 and 13
Drive control unit in claim 3 and 14
Feature extraction unit in claim 1
Road surface condition determination unit in claims 1, 5, and 6
Communication unit in claim 1
Image conversion unit in claims 7 and 16.
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 respectively in US 2025/0029399 A1.
Camera [0011]
Global Positioning System receiver [0015]
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVER FIG. 4
COMMUNICATION NETWORK FIG. 4
Display 150 FIG. 3
ECU or MCU [0074]
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVER FIG. 4
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVER FIG. 4
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVER FIG. 4
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVER FIG. 4
As taught by the method in FIG. 8.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-16 are presented.
Claims 12-16 are new.
Claims 2, 4, and 10 have been cancelled.
The Applicant argues amended claim 1 and dependent claims are allowable.
In the Applicants Arguments on 10/14/2025:
The Applicant argued against the combination of Kusama and Jang for lack of solving different technical problems utilizing different architectures requiring inventive integration. Kusama for not having real-time, and Jang for not having image based recognition from multiple vehicles.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Kusama teaches a system for determining road conditions. Jang teaches that road condition information can be applied in real time. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the road surface information from Kusama and look to Jang having a real-time communication system for road conditions to make road conditions available in real time. There is no explicit teaching-away for the combination of Kusama and Jang.
The Applicant argues the road conditions are a real-time, having bi-direction feedback whereas Kusama merely stores data and later distributes generalized difficulty levels for road conditions and Jang cannot process moving vehicle input and fails to provide feature-vector map feedback.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The server pf Kusama stores the degree of difficulty in traveling for each of one or more roads and provides this information to the client. Jang is relied on to establish that road information can be in real-time. Kusama provides bi-directional feedback by storing and distributing data to clients for road conditions using real-time communication as taught by Jang.
The Applicant argues that the rationale used by the Examiner to combine Kusama and Jang is inconsistent with precedence. The precedence being fundamentally different problems, lacking a reasonable expectation of success, and having different architectures.
The problems solved for both Kusama and Jang are analogous in that Kusama provides a system for “the degree of difficulty in traveling for each of one or more roads” [Abstract] and Jang provides “a system for detecting a road surface condition using vehicle data and image data” [Abstract]. As mentioned above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would view Kusama as a system for road conditions and Jang teaches that the system for road conditions can be updated in real-time.
The Applicant argues Kusama and Jang does not teach a MSE (Mean Square Error) of two adjacent partial areas of the polarized/unpolarized road surface with assigned respective weights.
The Examiner Agrees. Claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11 have allowable subject matter.
New claims 12-16 are analyzed in this Office Action. A reference of Omer et al. (US 2015/0178572 A1) is applied to claims 12-16 this Office Action to teach the limitations of a dry road surface, a wet road surface, and an iced road surface in addition to Kusama having a snowy surface.
The Applicant further argues that Kusama and Jang do not teach a drive control unit where Lee has only on-board sensors and does not contemplate road surface conditions received from a remote server via bi-directional communications and would require re-invention and the disclosures teach away.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Lee teaches that there is a drive control circuit which can be integrated with the server based road surface conditions of Kusama and Jang to provide driver assistance for road conditions for dry, wet, icy, and snow covered states [Title].
The Applicant further argues that Brockway’s 1 meter imagery resolution is unrelated to real-time local condition determination a reliability verification across vehicles.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Kusama and Jang teach road conditions. Brockway teaches imaging road conditions based on a one-meter model. All references are directed to road conditions and would be obvious to combine.
The Applicant further argues that Kusama does not teach feature extraction across, dry, wet, icy, or snowy roads and is a machine learning architecture going beyond Kusama.
The Examiner finds that Kusama teaches “feature extraction”, or “machine learning” [0036] for a “road due to snow cover” [Abstract[. Although machine learning is not claimed by the Applicant, it would be obvious that Kusama teaches machine learning.
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.
Claims 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (US 2020/0198643 A1) “Kusama” in view of Jang (KR 10-1936769 B1) Machine Translation “Jang” and further in view of Omer et al. (US 2015/0178572 A1) “Omer”.
12. Kusama teaches: A control system ("information processing system " [0011]. FIG. 1) using road surface recognition of a driving vehicle ("The vehicle acquires an image obtained by imaging a road on which a host vehicle is located" [ABSTRACT]) , the system comprising: a vehicle-attached ("VEHICLE 10" [FIG. 2]) device configured for transmitting ("COMMUNICATION UNIT 11" [FIG. 2]) , to a central management server ("server 20" [0021]), road surface information including the ("The positioning unit 12 includes a receiver compatible with a satellite positioning system. The receiver is compatible with, for example, a global positioning system (GPS)" [0028]) and road surface image information of a driving vehicle ("to acquire an image obtained by imaging a road on which a host vehicle is located." [0006]; the degree of difficulty in traveling on the road due to snow cover is determined by using the image actually imaged by the vehicle 10. [0023]); and the central management server configured for: extracting a ("Any image recognition algorithm such as pattern matching, feature extraction” [0036] of Kusama to determine a snow covered road surface" ; verifying validity of the determined road surface condition based on reliability of road surface information received from a plurality of driving vehicles ("The server 20 receives the degree of difficulty in traveling for each of one or more roads from one or a plurality of vehicles 10 and stores the degree of difficulty in traveling.” [0022]) and transmitting the verified ("The server … provides information to a client by using the stored degree of difficulty in traveling for each of one or more roads." [ABSTRACT]) .
Kusama does not explicitly teach where the information processing system provides data for road surface conditions in real-time.
However, Jang provides a system which provides road surface condition data in real-time.
“This road weather information system (RWIS) provides measured weather data and road condition information in real time” [0006]
The information processing system of Kusama which determines the degree of difficulty in traveling due to a vehicle based camera image of snow covered on a road can be modified by Jang to provide information in real time.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Jang to provide a system to reduce “the fatality rate of traffic accidents caused by slippery roads” [0002].
The combination of Kusama and Jang do not explicitly teach where the road conditions are a dry road surface, a wet road surface, and an iced road surface.
However, Omer teaches: dry road surface, a wet road surface, and an iced road surface (“snow, ice covered, slush covered, center covered track bare with slush, bare wet, bare dry, and fully bare” [Claim 16] for “road surface condition type”.).
The feature extraction of Kusama to determine a snow covered road can be modified by the “feature vectors” [Abstract] of Omer to detect a dry, wet, or iced road surface.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Omer “for classifying road surface conditions, more specifically for winter road maintenance optimization and commuter safety” [0007].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
13. Kusama, Jang, and Omer teach: The system of claim 12, wherein the vehicle-attached device includes: an image capture unit ("IMAGING UNIT 13" [FIG. 2] attached to "VEHICLE 10" [FIG. 2] of Kusama)) configured for continuously capturing the road surface image information ("snow cover is determined by using the image actually imaged by the vehicle 10" [0023] of Kusama) ; a global positioning system (GPS) unit configured for recognizing location information (“POSITIONING UNIT 12" FIG. 2 having e.g. GPS" [0028] of Kusama) of a road surface captured by the image capture unit in real time ("snow cover on the road" [0036] of Kusama. Real-time by Jang [0006].) ; a data packaging unit configured for packaging the real-time location information and road surface image information of the driving vehicle ("CONTROLLER 15" [0026] shown in FIG. 2 of Kusama); a data transmission/reception unit ("COMMUNICATION UNIT 11" [0026] FIG. 2 of Kusama) configured for transmitting the packaged road surface information to the central management server (server "20" [FIG. 1] of Kusama) and receiving the verified real-time road surface condition information ("The server stores the degree of difficulty in traveling for each of one or more roads, and provides information to a client by using the stored degree of difficulty in traveling for each of one or more roads." [ABSTRACT] of Kusama) ; and a display unit ("display" [0045] of Kusama.) configured for visually outputting the verified real-time road surface condition information ("DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY IN TRAVELING: LOW" [FIG. 6] of Kusama) .
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
16. Kusama, Jang, and Omer teach: The system of claim 12, wherein the central management server further includes an image conversion unit configured for converting the verified real-time road surface condition information to be displayed as image information on a driving route map (a real-time driving map showing “DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY IN TRAVELING: LOW” [FIG. 6] OF Kusama).
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (US 2020/0198643 A1) “Kusama” in view of Jang (KR 10-1936769 B1) Machine Translation “Jang”, in view of Omer et al. (US 2015/0178572 A1) “Omer”, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0001780 A1) “Lee”.
14. Kusama, Jang and Omer teach: The system of claim 12, having a vehicle-attached device.
Kusama, Jang, and Omar do not explicitly teach wherein the vehicle-attached device further includes a drive control unit controlling driving information of the driving vehicle based on the verified real-time road surface condition information, received from the central management server.
However, Lee teaches: wherein the vehicle-attached device further includes a drive control unit controlling driving information of the driving vehicle based on the verified real-time road surface condition information, received from the central management server. ("brake drive unit 753 may control an operation of a brake mounted at each wheel to reduce speed of the vehicle 200" [0121]) .
The system of Kusama and Jang detecting a snow covered road can be modified by Lee to control the driving information of the driving vehicle based on the road condition information received from the central management server to reduce speed of the vehicle in a state where the road surface is classified as a snow covered state.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Lee “to provide a driver assistance apparatus that is capable of recognizing a road surface state” [0007] and to provide a “brake drive unit” for “the road surface data.” [0009].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusama et al. (US 2020/0198643 A1) “Kusama” in view of Jang (KR 10-1936769 B1) Machine Translation “Jang”, in view of Omer et al. (US 2015/0178572 A1) “Omer” and further in view of Brockway et al. (US 6,456,288 B1) “Brockway”.
15. Kusama, Jang, and Omer teach the system of claim 12, wherein the central management server determines the road surface condition.
Kusama, Jang, and Omer do not explicitly teach where the road surface condition is based on a predetermined length by determining a local road surface conditions in units of 1 m or less, and verifying validity of the accumulated local road surface conditions for the predetermined length.
However Brockway teaches a predetermined length by determining a local road surface condition in units of 1 m or less, and verifying validity of the accumulated local road surface conditions for the predetermined length (“an original twenty-five-meter source imagery resolution data set contains a one-meter model of a road rather than the original road that was captured at twenty-five-meter resolution” [Col. 5 lines 7-10]. Such that “the one-hundred-meter imagery blends into the fifty-meter imagery, which blends into the twenty-five-meter imagery, because all resolution sets are derived from the highest-resolution image data.” [Col. 5 lines 16-19].)
The determination of the road surface condition of Kusama can be modified by Brockway to teach a predetermined length of one hundred meters using a resolution of 1 meter.
The motivation for the combination is provided by Brockway “The present invention enables creation of a database comprised of high-resolution models incorporated into lower-resolution source imagery.” [Col. 1 lines 63-65].
Therefore, the Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and the claim is rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest reference of record is Kusama et al. (US 2020/0198643 A1) . In the Applicant' s independent claims 1 and 8 the reference of Kusama does not teach:
wherein the road surface condition determination unit is configured to calculate a mean square error for two areas “B” and “P” each having a size m x n as two adjacent areas in an original road surface image information and a polarized road surface image information, and assign a weight to an iced road surface or a wet road surface.
Where the mean square error is:
PNG
media_image1.png
68
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kusama fails to directly anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious (to be used with other claimed limitations).
Any comments considered necessary by the Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Prior Art
Choi et al. KR 10-2022-0029902
Abstract
The present invention relates to a road surface monitoring system and a method, which includes: a central server; a vehicle traveling along a road surface; a road surface detection sensor provided in the vehicle and sensing road surface condition information; a position sensor provided in the vehicle and configured to detect current location information of the vehicle; and a communication unit for transmitting measurement information including road surface condition information received from the road surface sensor, current location information received from the position sensor, and time information to the central server. Accordingly, it is possible to promptly perform a repair work by immediately identifying damage and cracks in the road surface.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TED W BARNES whose telephone number is (571) 270-1785. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00-5:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/TED W. BARNES/ Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2682
/TED W BARNES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Prosecution Insights