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 .
DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
FOREIGN PRIORITY
A claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119 (a) - (d), which was contained in the Declaration and Power of Attorney filed on 10/25/2023 has been acknowledged. Acknowledgement of claimed foreign priority and receipt of priority documents is reflected in form PTO-326 Office Action Summary.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
35 USC 101 Alice
Applicant submits claim is tied to physical hardware (camera) and vehicle display/input operations, so claims cannot be performed “in the human mind”. Applicant submits these claims are not merely generic computer component functions but claim provides a technical solution to the spec identified problem of correctly detecting new/updated road signs) by integrated hardware/explicit approval/registration into a practical application.
After reviewing applicant arguments, claim limitations and 35 USC 101 Alice guidance, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Step 2A, Prong 1
In response, examiner submits calculating a degree of matching and comparing to a predetermined value is a mathematical comparison or mental evaluation performed on data. Examiner also submits feature extraction (e.g. detecting a road sign based on shape, color and characteristics) is a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claim additional elements (processor/camera/display/storage) remain generic components used as tools to implement the abstract idea and do not impose meaningful limits. In view of above arguments, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
Examiner submits instructions to apply the exception using generic components do not provide an inventive concept. Also, examiner submits claims as constructed recite a high level of generality and do not recite how the matching/feature extraction is performed, nor a specific technological improvement in camera operation or computer functioning.
Overall Conclusion
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
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 & 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 1
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 1 - “Devices” are machines.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “acquire image data captured by an in-vehicle camera provided on a vehicle, the in-vehicle camera being a charge coupled device (CCD) image sensor or a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor; detect a road sign from the image data based on a shape, a color, and characteristics of the road sign according to an identifier stored in a storage unit; determine whether the road sign detected from the image data is different from a plurality of pre-registered existing designs stored in a storage unit in advance by calculating a degree of matching between the road sign and each of the existing designs; determine that the road sign detected from the image data is different from the plurality of existing designs in a state where the degree of matching with all the existing designs is equal to or less than a predetermined value; cause a display unit provided in the vehicle to display a candidate for the road sign with an approval icon and a denial icon for registering the road sign to a user in response to a determination that the road sign is different from the existing designs; and register a new design as the road sign in the storage unit in response to the determination that the road sign is different from the existing designs and the user performs an approval operation to the candidate for the road sign via an input unit of the driving assistance device.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor, vehicle, camera, storage unit, display unit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor, vehicle, camera, storage unit, display unit” language, “acquiring, detecting, determining, causing, registering” in the context of this claim encompasses covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity).
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites five additional element – using a “processor, vehicle, camera, storage unit, display unit” to perform “acquiring, detecting, determining, causing, registering” steps. The “processor, vehicle, camera, storage unit, display unit” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) acquire image data captured by an in-vehicle camera provided on a vehicle, the in-vehicle camera being a charge coupled device (CCD) image sensor or a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor; detect a road sign from the image data based on a shape, a color, and characteristics of the road sign according to an identifier stored in a storage unit; determine whether the road sign detected from the image data is different from a plurality of pre-registered existing designs stored in a storage unit in advance by calculating a degree of matching between the road sign and each of the existing designs; determine that the road sign detected from the image data is different from the plurality of existing designs in a state where the degree of matching with all the existing designs is equal to or less than a predetermined value; cause a display unit provided in the vehicle to display a candidate for the road sign with an approval icon and a denial icon for registering the road sign to a user in response to a determination that the road sign is different from the existing designs; and register a new design as the road sign in the storage unit in response to the determination that the road sign is different from the existing designs and the user performs an approval operation to the candidate for the road sign via an input unit of the driving assistance device. such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “processor, vehicle, camera, storage unit, display unit” to perform “acquiring, detecting, determining, causing, registering” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor”), mental process (“generic “learning” training/update without algorithm specifics”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“reporting the result”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“processor, in vehicle camera, display unit, storage unit”), mental process (“detect the road sign, learn as new design candidates based on existing design, display”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“processing unit configured to cause the display unit to display the candidate and application processing unit to display and propose the new design as characterized as output/presentation”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moed et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0074249) in view of Gibson et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0156704)
As to claim 1, Moed discloses A driving assistance device comprising a processor, wherein the processor (214, Fig. 2 & [0024]) is configured to: acquire image data captured by an in-vehicle camera provided on a vehicle, the in-vehicle camera being a charge coupled device (CCD) image sensor or a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor (210, Fig. 2 & [0024]); detect a road sign from the image data based on a shape, a color, and characteristics of the road sign according to an identifier stored in a storage unit ([0025-0028, 0036-0037 discloses pattern matching of sign shapes against stored/trained sign features/models.)([0036] discloses color based processing and discrimination)); determine whether the road sign detected from the image data is different from a plurality of pre-registered existing designs stored in a storage unit in advance by calculating a degree of matching between the road sign and each of the existing designs ([0026-0027] discloses a confidence value to candidates (match metric) and teaches eliminating/discounting candidates below a threshold [0027]. See 317/318/320, Fig. 3); determine that the road sign detected from the image data is different from the plurality of existing designs in a state where the degree of matching with all the existing designs is equal to or less than a predetermined value ([0026-0027] discloses a confidence value to candidates (match metric) and teaches eliminating/discounting candidates below a threshold [0027]. See 317/318/320, Fig. 3);
Moed is silent to cause a display unit provided in the vehicle to display a candidate for the road sign with an approval icon and a denial icon for registering the road sign to a user in response to a determination that the road sign is different from the existing designs; and register a new design as the road sign in the storage unit in response to the determination that the road sign is different from the existing designs and the user performs an approval operation to the candidate for the road sign via an input unit of the driving assistance device.
However, Gibson discloses to cause a display unit provided in the vehicle to display a candidate for the road sign with an approval icon and a denial icon for registering the road sign to a user in response to a determination that the road sign is different from the existing designs; and register a new design as the road sign in the storage unit in response to the determination that the road sign is different from the existing designs and the user performs an approval operation to the candidate for the road sign via an input unit of the driving assistance device. ([0011-0014 discloses detecting/classifying object including road signs in image data and compares it against a stored map data. Then proposed items are displayed for user to accept or reject items to be added to stored map. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Moed’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to enable reliable human verified registration of previously unrecognized road signs.
As to claim 5, Moed in view of Gibson discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Moed discloses the learned/model based recognition framework and matching confidence mechanics [0025-0038]. Gibson discloses user interface presentation and proposal/feedback and persistence into stored data [0013-0014].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moed et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0074249) in view of Gibson et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0156704) as applied in claim 1 above further in view of SHI et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0405517)
As to claim 4, Moed in view of Gibson discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the processor is configured to learn a detection result of detecting the shape, the color, and the characters of the road sign, and output a learning result of learning the detection result.
However, SHI Abstract, Summary of Invention, Figs. 1-3 & Corresponding Disclosure discloses a training module that performs learning from traffic sign recognition results and outputs recognition parameters/results back to the pipeline
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Moed in view of Gibson’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to reduce drift, adapting to regional variants, and producing lower false positives while reusing the existing label outcomes.
CONCLUSION
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 Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675