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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 22, 2026 has been entered.
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 specification objection and the 112(b) rejections.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
101
Applicant argues:
"Claims that are directed to improvements in computer functionality or other technology are not abstract."
Examiner responds:
The present invention is not alleged to be an improvement to computer functionality.
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
Examiner responds:
Such an improvement is application specific, it is not about the underlying technology.
Applicant argues:
Specifically, the amended independent claims integrate the concepts therein into the practical application of recognizing the appropriate speed limit for a vehicle.
Examiner responds:
Applicant has not identified an additional element.
Applicant argues:
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully asserts that the above claimed features are not a task that a human can practically perform in real time while driving.
Examiner responds:
The examiner does not understand Applicant’s contention because speed limit signs were designed to be read by people.
102
Applicant argues:
Ro does not perform any proximity-based spatial filtering among a plurality of simultaneously detected signs.
Examiner responds:
In the next paragraphs of the remarks, Applicant admits “Ro teaches withholding the speed limit output until the vehicle reaches the junction, and only then confirms the actual travel road using GPS information before outputting the corresponding speed limit.” Ro’s withholding is proximity-based spatial filtering.
Applicant argues:
Ro is merely a post-hoc, GPS- based confirmation system that is fundamentally different from the preemptive, turn-signal- history-based prediction required by the amended independent claims.
Examiner responds:
Ro teaches using the turn signal, and thus meets the claims.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “last use history” but this appears to be a mistranslation. Here, the plain meaning is the most recent operation. For example, if the user shifts the turn signal stalk to the right, the last use history is signaling a right turn. However, the remarks argue that “last use history” includes “a past state of the turn signal lamp after the lamp has been deactivated.” Such an interpretation is new terminology. MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claims 1 and 11 recite “an operation state of a turn signal lamp of the vehicle and a last use history of the turn signal lamp,” but it is unclear how the operation state differs from the last use history (because, to the examiner’s understanding, the operation state only changes due to the use of the turn signal). Note that reciting these with an “and” implies that they are two separate considerations.
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 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 an operation state of a turn signal lamp of the vehicle and 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.” 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. (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.”
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
Prosecution Insights