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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ filing on 01/09/2026. Claims 1-20 were previously pending, of which claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 13, 17, and 19 have been amended, and no claims have been cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 2, 5-7, 11, and 14-16 have been withdrawn, and claims 1, 3-4, 8-10, 12-13, and 17-20 are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant's remarks, see pages 17-25, filed 01/09/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
With respect to the specification objections, the amendments have rendered the objections moot. Therefore, the objections to the specification are withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Further consideration of the prior art of record determined that Fujii does appear to disclose the offset associated with a distance of the lane that applies to a first speed limit, as amended in claim 1. It further teaches that the map data is associated with the road the vehicle is traveling on, in alignment with the connection of the offset to the map information disclosed in the instant specification. Fujii in view of Silver remains applied to claims 8 and 17 for the speed profile used to correlate the perception speed limit with the map data to determine the appropriate control to apply to the zone between two speed limit signs. Due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed. New application of prior art addresses the amended language, as mapped below. Therefore, the amended claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103, and have been updated in the final office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The offset is a length value that is associated with a speed limit on a lane, it does not appear to be generated. It isn’t clear where it comes from or how the distance is determined. Further the offset is used to determine the “age” of the speed limit. It doesn’t appear to be explicitly used to determine that a portion of a map corresponds to the offset. The map data does not appear to be portioned out. A second speed limit is determined using the map data based on the age of the speed limit. The offset is not directly used in determining the map information used to determine the second speed limit.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, 12-13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 10, and 19 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 limitation "the distance along the road that is associated with the offset," prior to this the offset was associated with a lane. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It will be interpreted that it is meant to be the lane.
In claims 1, 8, 10, 17, and 19, the term “portion” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “portion” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not explicitly provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It will be interpreted that it may include all map data.
Claims 3-4, 9, 12-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent on rejected claims 1, 10, and 19 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 10, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujii et al. (US 2022/0105938 A1), hereinafter Fujii.
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, Fujii discloses a system comprising: one or more processors to: (see at least [0041] “The vehicle driving support device 10 includes… a CPU”)
determine, based at least on sensor data obtained using one or more sensors of a machine, a first speed limit associated with a speed limit sign corresponding to the lane;
(see at least [0049] “a device that detects forward information (detection information IFd) of the host vehicle 100… a device such as an onboard camera.” [0061] “acquiring traffic information IF as first traffic information IF1 from the detection information IFd” [0051] “examples of the traffic information IF… include regulations such as a speed limit”)
generate, based at least on the determining the first speed limit, an offset associated with a distance along the lane that applies to the first speed limit; (see at least [0019] “In general, road signs indicating the same type of traffic information and the like are installed at every intersection or installed at intervals of a predetermined distance or less. Accordingly, when new first traffic information has not been acquired in spite of traveling of the host vehicle for a predetermined distance, there is a likelihood that the first traffic information used for the driving support at that time will not be appropriate.”)
based at least on the generating the offset, determining that a portion of a map corresponds to the offset; (see at least [0061] “The vehicle driving support device 10 performs a process (second process) of identifying a position on a map at which the host vehicle 100 is traveling by comparing the current position Pnow of the host vehicle 100 with the map data DTmap”)
determine, based at least on map data representative of the portion of the map, a second speed limit associated with the offset; (see at least [0061] “identifying a position on a map at which the host vehicle 100 is traveling… and acquiring traffic information IF at the position as second traffic information IF2 from the traffic information data DTtrf” [0079] “the second traffic information IF2 are speed limits”)
determine, using one or more rules and based at least on the first speed limit and the second speed limit associated with the offset, a final speed limit associated with the offset; (see at least [0066-0067] “Between after the driving support based on the first traffic information IF1 has been started and until a predetermined first condition C1 is satisfied, the vehicle driving support device 10 continues to perform the driving support based on the first traffic information IF1 without performing the driving support based on the second traffic information IF2 even when the second traffic information IF2 is acquired.” [0091-0093])
and cause, based at least on the final speed limit associated with the speed limit sign, the machine to perform one or more operations while navigating the distance along the road that is associated with the offset. (see at least [0060] “For example, driving support is… vehicle speed limit control for limiting a driving force which is applied to the host vehicle 100 or applying a braking force to the host vehicle 100 such that the vehicle speed SPD of the host vehicle 100 does not exceed a speed limit when the traffic information IF is a speed limit.”)
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Fujii discloses the determination of the final speed limit comprises: determining that the first speed limit is different than the second speed limit; (see at least [0086-0087] “when a road sign R130 indicating a speed limit of 40 km/h is detected by the forward information detecting device 41… (first traffic information IF1) and sign speed limit display D130 of 40 km/h… a speed limit R232 of 60 km/h are acquired as data speed limits (second traffic information IF2) from the map database 44”)
and based at least on the first speed limit being different than the second speed limit, determining to use one of the first speed limit or the second speed limit as the final speed limit associated with the speed limit sign. (see at least [0086-0087] “(first traffic information IF1) and sign speed limit display D130 of 40 km/h… a speed limit R232 of 60 km/h are acquired as data speed limits (second traffic information IF2) from the map database 44, but… does not reach the predetermined first distance D1_th, data speed limit display of 60 km/h is not performed and the sign speed limit display D130 of 40 km/h continues to be performed.”)
With respect to claims 4 and 13, Fujii discloses the determination to use the one of the first speed limit or the second speed limit as the final speed limit associated with the speed limit sign comprises: determining a second distance traveled by the machine since the determining the first speed limit; (see at least [0070] “the predetermined first condition C1 is, a condition that a traveling distance D of the host vehicle 100 (a first traveling distance D1) after the first traffic information IF1”)
determining whether the second distance is less than or equal to a threshold distance; (see at least [0087] “traveling distance D (the first traveling distance D1) of the host vehicle 100 after the sign speed limit of 40 km/h has been acquired at the point P30 does not reach the predetermined first distance D1_th”)
and one of determining, based at least on the second distance being less than or equal to the threshold distance, to use the first speed limit as the final speed limit; (see at least [0086-0087] “As illustrated in FIG. 3, when a road sign R130 indicating a speed limit of 40 km/h is detected by the forward information detecting device 41… (first traffic information IF1) and sign speed limit display D130 of 40 km/h… does not reach the predetermined first distance D1_th, data speed limit display of 60 km/h is not performed and the sign speed limit display D130 of 40 km/h continues to be performed.”)
or determining, based at least on the second distance being greater than the threshold distance, to use the second speed limit as the final speed limit. (see at least [0086-0088] “the traveling distance D (the first traveling distance D1) of the host vehicle 100 after the sign speed limit of 40 km/h has been acquired at the point P30 reaches the predetermined first distance D1_th at a point P33… the speed limit display is switched from the sign speed limit display D130 of 40 km/h to a data speed limit display D233 of 60 km/h”)
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, 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.
Claims 8, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Silver et al. (US 2020/0364473 A1), hereinafter Silver.
With respect to claims 8 and 17, Fujii discloses the determination of the second speed limit comprises determining that the map data representing the portion of the map includes a data frame, the data frame representing the second speed limit, (see at least [0039-0040] “identifying a position on a map at which the host vehicle 100 is traveling by comparing the current position Pnow of the host vehicle 100 with the map data DTmap and acquiring traffic information IF at the position as second traffic information IF2 from the traffic information data DTtrf at intervals of a predetermined time.” [0079] “the second traffic information IF2 are speed limits”)
Fujii discloses selecting a speed limit using perception and map data to automatically perform control of a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the rest of the features as claimed.
However, Silver teaches the one or more processors are further configured to generate a speed limit profile by associating the offset data segment with the data frame; (see at least [0063] “the speed limit sign 510 that is determined to be permanent with general effect may be a start point and end point of a zone identified in the pre-stored detailed map information, such as speed change location 560.” [0049] “The speed limit sign may be determined to be permanent with general effect (i.e., not temporary) when the location of the identified speed limit sign corresponds to a pre-stored location of a speed limit sign in the pre-stored detailed map information.” Note: The speed limit profile of the instant specification includes map data associated with the offset and the speed limit segment of the perception data.)
and the determination of the final speed limit is based at least on the speed limit profile. (see at least [0026] “When the effect zone of the detected speed limit sign is determined, the vehicle's computing devices may determine how the vehicle should respond… then control the vehicle based on the determined response.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the speed limit determination of Fujii to include the effect zone disclosed in Silver, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine control for a vehicle based on the determined effect zone of the identified speed limit sign, see Silver [0004].
With respect to claim 9, Fujii discloses selecting a speed limit using perception and map data to automatically perform control of a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose preprocessing data when determining the speed limit profile/classification.
However, Silver teaches wherein the data frame undergoes preprocessing before the generating of the speed limit profile, the preprocessing comprising at least one of data conversion to cast the data frame in a format conducive to further processing, de-duplication of speed limit values, and removal of outdated data. (see at least [0047] “As the vehicle 100 moves through its environment, the perception system 172 detects… object may be classified as a speed limit sign when the text on the object includes “speed limit,” “mph,” “kph,” a number, etc.” [0023] “When the object is classified as or determined to be a speed limit sign… determine whether the speed limit sign permanent with general effect, permanent with local effect, or temporary based on pre-stored detailed map information and other factors.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the speed limit determination of Fujii to include the preprocessing of perception data disclosed in Silver, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method to support the vehicle determining the speed from image data, see Silver [0047].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Silver and Akella (US 2020/0406894 A1), hereinafter Akella.
With respect to claim 18, Fujii discloses selecting a speed limit using perception and map data to automatically perform control of a vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose the use of fully autonomous systems.
However, Silver teaches the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; (see at least [0008] “The system includes a perception system configured to detect an object in a vehicle's environment” [0034] “In one example, the vehicle's computing devices 110 may be an autonomous driving computing system incorporated into vehicle 100… to control the vehicle in fully autonomous… as well as semiautonomous… driving modes.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the automated control of Fujii to include the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Silver, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to aid in the transport of passengers or items from one location to another without a human driver, see Silver [0002].
Fujii discloses the data processing of selecting a speed limit using perception and map data, but does not explicitly disclose the use of simulations, neural networks, synthetic/virtual data, or data centers/cloud computing.
However, Akella teaches a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; (Akella see at least [0064] “The surroundings analysis system 703 may further include storage for simulated data that has been generated by a computer simulation algorithm, for use in part in testing.”)
a system for performing generative Al operations; a system for performing operations using a large language model; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing conversational Al operations; (see at least [0025] “In at least some examples, such a machine-learned model 208 comprises an artificial or deep learned neural network”)
a system implemented using an edge device; (see at least [0101] “The systems and methods described herein may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a network.”)
a system implemented using a robot; (see at least [0084] “the computing device may be operatively coupled to any machine-based vision system… industrial or agricultural robots, household robots”)
a system for generating synthetic data; (see at least [0021] “The vehicle-control system synthesizes the sensory data into a set of driving-environment characteristics that correspond to the inputs of the machine-learned model.”)
a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; (see at least [0065] “The localization and mapping subsystem 714 may include functionality to convert or map data to… a three-dimensional space in an environment.”)
a system for performing digital twin operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); (Akella see at least [0099] “The systems, subsystems, and methods described herein can be implemented using one or more virtual machines operating alone or in combination with one other.”)
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (see at least [0076] “the systems and methods described herein may not be limited to these platforms. Instead, the systems and methods described herein may be implemented on… proxy servers, network communication servers… web servers, data, media, audio, video, telephony or streaming technology servers, etc.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the CPU of Fujii to include the computing systems disclosed in Akella, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a variety of computer systems capable of carrying out the functionality of the speed limit determination, see Akella [0076, 0099, 0101].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Silver and Akella.
With respect to claim 20, Fujii discloses displaying a speed limit determined using perception and map data, but does not explicitly disclose the use of fully autonomous systems.
However, Silver teaches the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; (see at least [0008] “The system includes a perception system configured to detect an object in a vehicle's environment” [0034] “In one example, the vehicle's computing devices 110 may be an autonomous driving computing system incorporated into vehicle 100… to control the vehicle in fully autonomous… as well as semiautonomous… driving modes.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the speed limit determination for a vehicle of Fujii to include the autonomous vehicle disclosed in Silver, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to aid in the transport of passengers or items from one location to another without a human driver, see Silver [0002].
Fujii discloses the data processing of displaying a speed limit determined using perception and map data, but does not explicitly disclose the use of simulations, neural networks, synthetic/virtual data, or data centers/cloud computing.
However, Akella teaches a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; (see at least [0064] “The surroundings analysis system 703 may further include storage for simulated data that has been generated by a computer simulation algorithm, for use in part in testing.”)
a system for performing generative Al operations; a system for performing operations using a large language model; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing conversational Al operations; (see at least [0025] “In at least some examples, such a machine-learned model 208 comprises an artificial or deep learned neural network”)
a system implemented using an edge device; (see at least [0101] “The systems and methods described herein may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a network.”)
a system implemented using a robot; (see at least [0084] “the computing device may be operatively coupled to any machine-based vision system… industrial or agricultural robots, household robots”)
a system for generating synthetic data; (see at least [0021] “The vehicle-control system synthesizes the sensory data into a set of driving-environment characteristics that correspond to the inputs of the machine-learned model.”)
a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; (see at least [0065] “The localization and mapping subsystem 714 may include functionality to convert or map data to… a three-dimensional space in an environment.”)
a system for performing digital twin operations; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); (see at least [0099] “The systems, subsystems, and methods described herein can be implemented using one or more virtual machines operating alone or in combination with one other.”)
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (see at least [0076] “the systems and methods described herein may not be limited to these platforms. Instead, the systems and methods described herein may be implemented on… proxy servers, network communication servers… web servers, data, media, audio, video, telephony or streaming technology servers, etc.”)
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the processing hardware device of Fujii to include the computing systems disclosed in Akella, with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a variety of computer systems capable of carrying out the functionality of the speed limit determination, see Akella [0076, 0099, 0101].
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY MARIE OSTERHOUT whose telephone number is (703)756-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/S.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669