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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/29/2025 been received and considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, and 6-10 are pending.
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended.
Claims 6-10 are new.
This FINAL Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 08/04/2025.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 08/04/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Title Objection: The new title of “INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM FOR GRASPING DANGEROUS SPOTS ON TRAVELING ROAD” is descriptive and accepted. The title objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f): Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore, the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f) have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b): Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
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 is 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.
With respect to claim 1: First, it is unclear how it is determined that the brake mark is caused by the second vehicle. It is known in the art that there is a delay between when the satellite imagery is captured in space and when it reaches Earth. Depending on the road, multiple vehicles could pass through the same predetermined point. Therefore, the brake mark is made by any vehicle that’s not the first vehicle.
Second, it is unclear how is it determined that the fallen object is not caused by the second vehicle. In the case where there are brake marks and a fallen tree (fallen object) in the second image cause by a vehicle running into a tree, would it be considered a dangerous point? Also, prior art often considers a fallen object that is in the middle of the road a dangerous point/ a hazard, because no one wants to accidently driver over an unknown object in the middle of the road.
Third, it is unclear how a road accessory is considered “damaged”. Does this include a difference in position (i.e. a temporary road sign being moved for construction), markings (i.e. graffiti markings on a road sign), or natural weathering (i.e. the leaves falling off a street tree)? Any change in the road accessory could be considered damage.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno (US PGPub 2022/0301427) in view of Reinstein (US PGPub 2019/0050625) and in further view of Carver (US PGPub2020/0286310).
With respect to claim 1: Ueno teaches determine whether the difference on the second satellite image is caused by traveling of a second vehicle, the second vehicle being a preceding vehicle that has passed through the predetermined point [Ueno ¶ 0069 "In a vehicle 1 traveling through a target section, the camera 2 captures images of a view looking frontward of the vehicle 1, and the in-vehicle terminal 4 detects a significant event occurring on the road ahead of the vehicle 1 based on the images captured by the camera 2 (significant event detection operation)."],
in case where the difference includes a brake mark generated on the second satellite image or a road accessory identified to be damaged on the second satellite image, determine that the difference is caused by the traveling of the second vehicle [Ueno ¶ 0069 "The significant event is an object or a condition that may hinder the safe driving of the vehicle 1, such as … a skid mark on the road,]
in case where the difference is a fallen object on the second satellite image, determine that the difference is not caused by the traveling of the second vehicle [Ueno ¶ 0069 "The significant event is an object or a condition that may hinder the safe driving of the vehicle 1, such as an obstacle on the road (e.g., a fallen object that has fallen from a vehicle such as a tire or a seat)"],
in a case where the processor determines that the difference on the second satellite image is caused by the traveling of the second vehicle, set the predetermined point as a dangerous point, and [Ueno ¶ 0071 "significant event"]
Ueno does not teach acquiring, comparing, and identifying a difference of satellite images.
However, in a related field of invention, Reinstein does teach acquire a first satellite image captured at a predetermined point by an artificial satellite [Reinstein ¶ 0002 "detecting changes over two or more satellite images"],
acquire a second satellite image captured at the predetermined point a predetermined time after the first satellite image is captured [Reinstein ¶ 0002 "detecting changes over two or more satellite images" and ¶ 0039 "The user input may comprise one or more date and time specification, area of interest (AOI), and/or object of interest (OOI) pertaining to a desired satellite image analysis task. "],
compare the first satellite image and the second satellite image [Reinstein ¶ 0002 "detecting changes over two or more satellite images"],
identify a difference on the second satellite image compared to the first satellite image [Reinstein ¶ 0002 "detecting changes over two or more satellite images"],
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the travel assistance method as taught by Ueno with the deep learning-based change detection for satellite images as taught by Reinstein in order to more accurately monitor and alert users of dangerous sections of road.
Ueno as modified by Reinstein does not teach in a case where the first vehicle is traveling in a predetermined section including the dangerous point, set an upper limit speed for the first vehicle.
However, in a related field of invention, Carver does teach in a case where the first vehicle is traveling in a predetermined section including the dangerous point, set an upper limit speed for the first vehicle [Carver ¶0036, 0078, and 0086] [Ueno ¶ 0149 "Then, the processor 15 of the in-vehicle terminal 4 selects a danger avoidance operation (such as deceleration or detour) for avoiding an accident based on the captured image at the time of occurrence of the accident."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the travel assistance method using satellite images as taught by Ueno and Reinstein with the setting an upper limit as taught by Carver in order to increase safety when approaching a dangerous area.
With respect to claim 6: Ueno as modified by Reinstein and Carver disclose the information processing system according to claim 1. Ueno further teaches wherein the processor is configured to acquire the first satellite image at a point corresponding to a travel route of the first vehicle in a case where the travel route is set by an occupant of the first vehicle via a navigation system [Ueno ¶ 0150 "The processor 15 of the in-vehicle terminal 4 performs the significant point approaching determination operation based on (i) a current captured image, which is output from the camera 2 and stored in the memory 14 (part of the VTDR), and (ii) the captured image at the time of occurrence of the accident at the significant point."].
With respect to claim 7: Ueno as modified by Reinstein and Carver disclose the information processing system according to claim 1. Ueno further teaches wherein the processor is configured to display the dangerous point on a traveling route of the first vehicle via a display device [Ueno ¶ 0183 " Next, the processor 43 overlays an icon representing the significant point on the map based on the position information on the position of the significant point (supervising map generation operation). The user terminal 9, which is connected to the server 8, displays the icon on the map."].
With respect to claim 8: Ueno as modified by Reinstein and Carver disclose the information processing system according to claim 1. Reinstein further teaches wherein the processor is configured to identify the difference on the second satellite image by using a deep learning model [Reinstein, Abstract "image analysis techniques that may exploit computer vision, supervised and unsupervised machine learning, and deep neural network models in order to detect change and determine spatio-temporal attention regions of relevant change in multi-spectral and multi-resolution satellite images"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the travel assistance method as taught by Ueno with the deep learning-based change detection for satellite images as taught by Reinstein in order to more accurately monitor and alert users of dangerous sections of road.
With respect to claim 9: Ueno as modified by Reinstein and Carver disclose the information processing system according to claim 1. Carver further teaches wherein the processor is configured to cancel the upper limit speed in a case where the first vehicle has passed through the dangerous point along a traveling road of the first vehicle [Carver ¶0036, 0078, and 0086].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the travel assistance method using satellite images as taught by Ueno and Reinstein with the automatically canceling the upper limit speed as taught by Carver in order to increase useability.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno in view of Reinstein in view of Carver and in further view of Tagawa (US PGPub 2022/0355823).
With respect to claim 3: Ueno as modified by Reinstein and Carver disclose the information processing system according to claim 1. Ueno as modified by Reinstein and Carver does not teach wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where a plurality of dangerous points is detected within the predetermined section, set the predetermined section as a dangerous section.
However, in a related field of invention, Tagawa does teach wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where a plurality of dangerous points is detected within the predetermined section, set the predetermined section as a dangerous section [Tagawa ¶ 0037 -0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the travel assistance method using satellite images and automatic speed limiting control as taught by Ueno, Reinstein, and Carver with the clustering of dangerous points in to a dangerous section as taught by Tagawa in order to increase useability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno in view of Reinstein in view of Carver and in further view of Mihara (JP 2009266136).
With respect to claim 10: Ueno as modified by Reinstein and Carver disclose the information processing system according to claim 1. Ueno as modified by Reinstein and Carver does not teach wherein the road accessory includes a fence, a road sign, a road lighting equipment, or a street tree.
However, Mihara does teach wherein the road accessory includes a fence, a road sign, a road lighting equipment, or a street tree [Mihara ¶ 0008 and 0016 "detect whether or not road structures such as lighting fixtures, poles, signs, and guardrails are damaged, simply by image processing"].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the travel assistance method using satellite images and automatic speed limiting control as taught by Ueno, Reinstein, and Carver with the road accessory being a sign or light fixture as taught by Mihara in order to increase useability.
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 JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666