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 .
Assignee Lineage
According to https://www.hlklemove.com/eng/main.do, “HL Klemove is starting anew through the merging of two companies, ADAS business unit that has spun off from Mando, the global automotive parts company, and Mando-Hella Electronics, a leader in the automotive electronic parts technology.” HL Klemove is the current assignee, Mando is the assignee of the prior art applied below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the 102 and 112(b) rejections.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
101
Applicant argues:
As such, the independent claims are tied to a vehicle, with cameras, displays, and audio functionalities
Examiner responds:
These are generic components
Applicant argues:
that uses a controller to analyze "a use history of the turn signal lamp based on the current operation state of the turn signal lamp and the last use history of the turn signal lamp stored in the memory."
Examiner responds:
This is a mental process
Applicant argues:
Specifically, the amended independent claims are directed to an apparatus and method that predicts a driver's driving intention before reaching an exit point, based on the turn signal operation state and use history, and preemptively selects an appropriate speed limit sign.
Examiner responds:
This is not a technological improvement because it does not improve how the technology operates. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(d)(III) discussing Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Applicant argues:
This improves the reliability of a driver having the correct speed limit information prior to passing the junction.
Examiner responds:
The examiner is not persuaded that considering the last use history of the turn signal is helpful. For example, there is no evidence that previous uses of the turn signal are more likely to have been in the correct direction rather than the wrong direction, or that the previous use is not usually because the driver changed their mind.
Applicant argues:
or perform incorrect control in an Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) system.
Examiner responds:
The claim appears to be directed to a human controlled vehicle, not ACC. See, e.g., claim 1, the speed limit warning message.
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully maintains that the above claimed features are not a task that a human can practically perform in real time while driving.
Examiner responds:
On its face, it is unclear why Applicant takes this position. Further explanation (and potentially evidence) could be helpful.
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, 3-11, and 13-20 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite an apparatus, and machines are eligible subject matter.
Claim 11 (and its dependents) recite a method, and processes are eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 (all claims) are a mental process because a person can look at speed limit signs and decide which to follow (or otherwise decide how to operate a vehicle). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150302747A1 (“Ro”) in view of US20190047469A1 (“Nishiguchi”).
1. An apparatus for driver assistance comprising:
a camera installed in a vehicle, having a forward field of view of the vehicle, and configured to acquire image data; and (Ro, claim 1 “on which a vehicle is traveling, through a camera”)
a controller configured to process the image data, (Ro, claim 1 “an electronic control unit configured to recognize a speed limit”)
wherein the controller is configured to:
predict a driver's driving intention at an exit ahead of a road on which the vehicle travels as either a first driving intention corresponding to driving on a main road which is a straight road or a second driving intention corresponding to driving on an exit lane capable of exiting to one side based on a current operation state of a turn signal lamp of the vehicle and a last use history of the turn signal lamp stored in a memory; (Ro, [0071] “As another example, when the electronic control unit 22 acquires a turn signal information but the turn signal does not indicate the direction of the branch road.” Ro’s turn signal information teaches both the claimed operation state and the last use history (i.e., the last use of the turn signal was activating it))
identify a plurality of speed limit signs from the image data; (Ro, Fig. 4)
select, among the plurality of speed limit signs, only a speed limit sign that is located closest to a road corresponding to the predicted driver’s driving intention, and ignore the remaining speed limit signs; (Ro, [0074] “Thus, at the time of the left turn travel at the intersection, the electronic control unit 22 may output the speed limit as “80”→“70” to output the speed limit of the traffic sign positioned in the same direction as the travel direction.”)
identify a speed limit of the selected speed limit sign; and (Ro, [0074] “Thus, at the time of the left turn travel at the intersection, the electronic control unit 22 may output the speed limit as “80”→“70” to output the speed limit of the traffic sign positioned in the same direction as the travel direction.”)
control at least one of a display device or an audio device to output a speed limit warning message according to the identified speed limit, (Ro, [0060] “The speed limit is output through the cluster 23, the speaker 24, or the cluster 23 and the speaker 24 to be delivered to the driver so that speeding can be prevented.”)
Ro is not relied on for the below claim elements.
However, Nishiguchi teaches:
wherein the last use history of the turn signal lamp in the memory is deleted after a preset time has elapsed, (Nishiguchi, [0162] “That is, the HMI controller 120 controls the HMI 20 to stop output of information for notifying standby for lane change and output information for newly notifying time out.” Nishiguchi’s timing out teaches the claimed deleting after a preset time has elapsed.)
wherein the controller is configured to:
identify whether there is a use history of the turn signal lamp based on the current operation state of the turn signal lamp and the last use history of the turn signal lamp stored in the memory, and (Nishiguchi, Fig. 13, steps S100-S104)
predict the driver's driving intention based on whether there is the use history of the turn signal lamp. (Nishiguchi, Fig. 13, step S106)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Nishiguchi to the teachings of Ro such that Nishiguchi’s lane change control is used with Ro’s turn signal for the purpose of providing a more sophisticated turn signal that determines the appropriateness of the direction indicator. Nishiguchi, [0003]-[0005].
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in a road environment in which the vehicle travels on a left-hand side, the controller is configured to identify that the vehicle does not exit from the road based on a fact that the turn signal lamp is not in use or that the last use history of the turn signal lamp is a right turn. (Ro, [0071] “As another example, when the electronic control unit 22 acquires a turn signal information but the turn signal does not indicate the direction of the branch road”)
4. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to select only a right speed limit sign among the plurality of speed limit signs, which is located to a right side of a main road, based on a result of identifying that the vehicle does not exit from the road and excludes the remaining speed limit signs from identifying the speed limit. (Ro, [0015] “When the road attribute included in the information received from the navigation terminal is a road at an intersection, the electronic control unit may determine whether a travel road, on which the vehicle is to travel, is a straight-advancing road, a left turning road, or a right turning road according to a heading angle of the vehicle, and when the travel road is determined, the electronic control unit may output a speed limit of a traffic sign positioned on the determined travel road.” See also, MPEP 2131.02(III))
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in a road environment in which the vehicle travels on a left-hand side, the controller is configured to identify that the vehicle exits from the road based on a fact that the last use history of the turn signal lamp is a left turn. (Ro, Fig. 5 and [0074] “When it is determined that the travel road is a left turn.” See also [0071] “when the electronic control unit 22 acquires a turn signal information”)
6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the controller is configured to select only a left speed limit sign among the plurality of speed limit signs, which is located to a left side of an exit lane, based on a result of identifying that the vehicle exits from the road and excludes the remaining speed limit signs from identifying the speed limit. (Ro, Fig. 5)
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in a road environment in which the vehicle travels on a right-hand side, the controller is configured to identify that the vehicle does not exit from the road based on a fact that the turn signal lamp is not in use or that the last use history of the turn signal lamp is a left turn. (Ro, Fig. 4 and [0071] “As another example, when the electronic control unit 22 acquires a turn signal information but the turn signal does not indicate the direction of the branch road”)
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to select only a left speed limit sign among the plurality of speed limit signs, which is located to a left side of a main road, based on a result of identifying that the vehicle does not exit from the road and excludes the remaining speed limit signs from identifying the speed limit. (Ro, Fig. 4)
9. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in a road environment in which the vehicle travels on a right-hand side, the controller is configured to identify that the vehicle exits from the road based on a fact that the last use history of the turn signal lamp is a right turn. (Ro, Fig. 4 and [0071] “As another example, when the electronic control unit 22 acquires a turn signal information but the turn signal does not indicate the direction of the branch road”)
10. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to select only a right speed limit sign among the plurality of speed limit signs, which is located to a right side of an exit lane, based on a result of identifying that the vehicle exits from the road and excludes the remaining speed limit signs from identifying the speed limit. (Ro, Fig. 4)
Claims 11 and 13-20 are rejected as per claims 1 and 3-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10089870 B2 – title, “Traffic Signs Recognition Device And Speed Limit Providing Method Thereof”
US 11423668 B2 – abstract, “Disclosed herein are a vehicle and a method of controlling a vehicle, and an object thereof is to provide a user with rapid and accurate recognition of traffic information around a road while a vehicle travels.”
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 DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
