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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument regarding “Herein, this lane recognition of Ro operates independently from the road traffic sign recognition, which is used solely for speed regulation purposes, not for correcting lane recognition information, as recited in claim 1. Ro is silent about the information acquired by the lane recognition is corrected or modified”, and “Ro uses lane recognition and traffic sign recognition as two separate, independent functions-lane recognition for lane departure warnings and traffic sign recognition for speed regulation display. At no point does Ro teach using traffic sign recognition information to correct or modify lane recognition information as explicitly recited in claim 1” have been fully considered; in response the examiner would like to firstly point out that using the broadest reasonable interpretation o of the claim, “lane recognition information” encompasses any information that the cameras or sensors in the vehicle acquire and the processed information that the computer manages, dealing with information acquired from the road. Using this premise, Ro ‘426 discloses the use of traffic sign recognition (in this case speed signs) as a way to acquire first road information and recognition of the lane as second road information. After collecting all the corresponding data, the system uses this information as a way to correct the operation of the vehicle as it is driving on a particular lane. Speed regulation is therefore being interpreted as part of the lane recognition information, since it is being used to control the vehicle, thus forming part of the crucial information needed to drive on the particular lane of the road. By modifying the speed limit information, the system is in fact correcting previous lane recognition information associated with the operation of the vehicle as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ro (US 2020/0394426).
(1) regarding claims 1 and 16:
Ro ‘426 discloses an apparatus (paragraph [0040], control system) comprising:
a memory storing one or more programs for correcting lane recognition information by using road traffic sign recognition information (paragraph [0060]-[0064], where the program for correcting the acquired information is stored in the controller 400, and it can be easily deduced from the disclosure of these paragraphs that a program for controlling and using the acquired information has to be included or the computer method cannot be performed); and
one or more processors performing an operation for correcting the lane recognition information by using the road traffic sign recognition information according to the one or more programs stored in the memory (paragraph [0060]-[0064], where the controller 400 can be interpreted as the one or more processors performing the operations),
wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire first road information based on the road traffic sign recognition information (paragraph [0043], where information about traffic signs is acquired),
acquire second road information based on the lane recognition information (paragraph [0041], where lane recognition information is acquired as part of the traffic information), and
correct the lane recognition information based on the first road information and the second road information (paragraph [0060]-[0064], where using the information acquired from the traffic signs and from the recognition of the lane, the display is corrected to show the determined valid road information).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-6, 9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ro (US 2020/0394426) in view of Taniguchi et al. (JP 2018-022206, machine translation used for all citations).
(1) regarding claims 2 and 17:
Ro ‘426 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein the first road information includes a first curvature representing a design curvature of a road.
However, Taniguchi ‘206 teaches wherein the first road information includes a first curvature representing a design curvature of a road (page 5, line 41 through page 6, line 2, where the sign information acquired is speed limit information and the curvature is calculated based on this acquired information).
Having a system of Taniguchi ‘206 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Ro ‘426 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ro ‘426 to include the limitations as taught by Taniguchi ‘206 because with this it provides a lane compartment line detection correction device which stabilizes a vehicle behavior by correcting excessive curvature information due to an erroneous detection of the curvature of a lane compartment line, a lane compartment line detection correction method and an automatic operation system (Problem to be solved).
(2) regarding claim 3:
Ro ‘426 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein the acquiring of the first road information includes acquiring a speed limit corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information based on the road traffic sign recognition information, and acquiring the first curvature based on the acquired speed limit.
However, Taniguchi ‘206 teaches wherein the acquiring of the first road information includes acquiring a speed limit corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information based on the road traffic sign recognition information, and acquiring the first curvature based on the acquired speed limit (page 5, line 41 through page 6, line 2, where the sign information acquired is speed limit information and the curvature is calculated based on this acquired information).
Having a system of Taniguchi ‘206 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Ro ‘426 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ro ‘426 to include the limitations as taught by Taniguchi ‘206 because with this it provides a lane compartment line detection correction device which stabilizes a vehicle behavior by correcting excessive curvature information due to an erroneous detection of the curvature of a lane compartment line, a lane compartment line detection correction method and an automatic operation system (Problem to be solved).
(3) regarding claim 4:
Ro ‘426 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein the first curvature corresponds to the speed limit and is acquired by using curvature design information to which the design curvature of the road is mapped for each design speed.
However, Taniguchi ‘206 teaches wherein the first curvature corresponds to the speed limit and is acquired by using curvature design information to which the design curvature of the road is mapped for each design speed (page 5, 1-8 and page 6 lines 4-16, where the sign information acquired is speed limit information and the curvature is calculated based on this acquired information, the information included the speed limit at which the road was designed for).
Having a system of Taniguchi ‘206 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Ro ‘426 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ro ‘426 to include the limitations as taught by Taniguchi ‘206 because with this it provides a lane compartment line detection correction device which stabilizes a vehicle behavior by correcting excessive curvature information due to an erroneous detection of the curvature of a lane compartment line, a lane compartment line detection correction method and an automatic operation system (Problem to be solved).
(4) regarding claim 5:
Ro ‘426 discloses all the subject matter as described above except in response to a determination that a traffic sign corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information is a speed limit sign in which a speed is directly described, acquiring a speed recognized from the speed limit sign as the speed limit corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information, and
in response to a determination that the traffic sign corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information is not the speed limit sign, acquiring the speed estimated from the speed limit sign as the speed limit corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information.
However, Taniguchi ‘206 teaches in response to a determination that a traffic sign corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information is a speed limit sign in which a speed is directly described, acquiring a speed recognized from the speed limit sign as the speed limit corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information (page 5, line 41 through page 6, line 2, where the sign information acquired is speed limit information and the curvature is calculated based on this acquired information), and
in response to a determination that the traffic sign corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information is not the speed limit sign, acquiring the speed estimated from the speed limit sign as the speed limit corresponding to the road traffic sign recognition information (page 6, lines 4-16).
Having a system of Taniguchi ‘206 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Ro ‘426 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ro ‘426 to include the limitations as taught by Taniguchi ‘206 because with this it provides a lane compartment line detection correction device which stabilizes a vehicle behavior by correcting excessive curvature information due to an erroneous detection of the curvature of a lane compartment line, a lane compartment line detection correction method and an automatic operation system (Problem to be solved).
(5) regarding claims 6 and 18:
Ro ‘426 discloses all the subject matter as described above except wherein the second road information includes a second curvature representing a curvature of a lane.
However, Taniguchi ‘206 teaches wherein the second road information includes a second curvature representing a curvature of a lane (page 3, lines 36-47, where the curvature is acquired based on information of the lane detection).
Having a system of Taniguchi ‘206 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Ro ‘426 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ro ‘426 to include the limitations as taught by Taniguchi ‘206 because with this it provides a lane compartment line detection correction device which stabilizes a vehicle behavior by correcting excessive curvature information due to an erroneous detection of the curvature of a lane compartment line, a lane compartment line detection correction method and an automatic operation system (Problem to be solved).
(6) regarding claims 9 and 19:
Ro ‘426 further discloses wherein the correcting of the lane recognition information includes verifying a validity of the lane recognition information based on the first road information and the second road information (paragraph [0053]-[0057], where the validity of the lane recognition is verified), and
correcting the lane recognition information based on a validity verification result in the verifying of the validity of the lane recognition information (paragraph [0053]-[0057], where based on the result of the validity, the lane recognition will be updated as good information).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 10-15, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A. Claim 7 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the acquiring of the second road information includes acquiring a lane polynomial based on the lane recognition information, and acquiring the second curvature based on the acquired lane polynomial”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. Claim 8 depends on claim 7, therefore a similar analysis applies.
B. Claims 10 and 20 disclose the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the verifying of the validity includes verifying information on whether the lane recognition information is valid by comparing the first curvature of the first road information and the second curvature of the second road information”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter. Claims 11-15 depend either directly or indirectly on claim 10, therefore a similar analysis applies.
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 LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights