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 112(a) and (b) rejections.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
Title
Applicant argues:
Otherwise, the Applicant respectfully asks the Examiner to provide an appropriate reason why the title of the invention is not description so that the Applicant can properly understand the ground of the objection and formulate a response.
Examiner responds:
MPEP 606.01 “Where the title is not descriptive of the invention claimed, the examiner should require the substitution of a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.” See also, 37 C.F.R. 1.72(a) “The title of the invention … must be as … specific as possible.”
The examiner suggests: “Apparatus and Method for Distinguishing Between Speed Limit Signs for a Main Road Versus an Exit Lane.”
101
Applicant argues:
Claim 1 does not recite a mental process because the human mind is not equipped to perform the limitation of claim 1.
Examiner responds:
Applicant’s highlighted limitations only differ from a mental process by the recitation/use of generic computer components.
Applicant argues:
Further, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2) states that: Examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind include: …
Examiner responds:
The mental processes in the present claims are not as complex as the MPEP’s examples.
Applicant argues:
Claim 1 is applied with or by use of a particular machine by reciting … a camera installed in a vehicle, having a forward field of view of the vehicle … turn signal lamp.
Examiner responds:
MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) identifies “cellular telephone” as a generic computer. Cellular telephones are at least as technical and specific as the claimed elements (e.g., cell phones have cameras).
102
Applicant argues:
Paragraph [0065] of Ro cited in the Office Action states that "[a]t the junction, when it is determined that the travel road is the right turning road through GPS information" (emphasis added).
Examiner responds:
The Non-Final’s mapping of claim 3 (i.e., Ro, [0071]) is more relevant than the Non-Final’s mapping of claim 2.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Apparatus and Method for Distinguishing Between Speed Limit Signs for a Main Road Versus an Exit Lane.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 (all claims) 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 vehicle is traveling,” but this is an improper method step in an apparatus claim. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claims 1 and 11 recite “select[ing] a speed limit sign … based on the predicted driver's driving intention,” but this is subjective because it lacks an objective standard. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). Specifying an objective standard, along the lines of the speed limit sign being located closest to the predicted roadway, is expected to overcome this rejection.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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. 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by US20150302747A1 (“Ro”).
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 is traveling 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 at least one of an operation state of a turn signal lamp of the vehicle or a last use history of the turn signal lamp; (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”)
identify a plurality of speed limit signs from the image data; (Ro, Fig. 4)
select a speed limit sign to identify a speed limit among the plurality of speed limit signs based on the predicted driver’s driving intention; 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.”)
identify a speed limit of the selected speed limit sign. (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.”)
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