DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/26/26 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 12, 15 and 20 are amended and claim 13 is canceled. Accordingly, claims 1-12 and 14-20 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment. However, at least one argument remains relevant to the current rejection.
With respect to the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection, Applicant states they have removed the phrase “similar in visual appearance” in order to avoid using a term of degree (Amend. 6-7). However, the term still appears in claim 3, which is used to define the term “family” recited in claim 2, such that these claims remain rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) rejection for using a term of degree under a broadest reasonable interpretation such that the metes and bounds of what is and is not required is indefinite. Despite appearing to acknowledge the lack of clarity for the limitation “similar in visual appearance” on Amend. 1-2, Applicant asserts that using the term “similar in visual appearance” to define “family” actually provides “clear meaning” overcoming the 112(b) rejection (Amend. 8). Applicant reasons this is because the Specification provides the context for the term citing “Read in light of the specification, this claim hierarchy has clear meaning. The specification . . . explains the utility of including database entries for signs that "have a visual appearance that is similar to the family of traffic signs of interest" (paragraph [0058])” (Amend. 8). However, this citation merely repeats the unclear language. Accordingly, Applicants arguments as to this point are unpersuasive.
With respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection, Applicant asserts that the U-turn sign database is not a generic data depository. However, claim 1 merely indicates basic generic database functions, lookup and retrieval, applied to the field of signs. The type of information included in a generic component does not make that component specialized, nor does this confer a specialized data structure to the database. Here, the recitation that the database is used to store U-turn sign information is merely a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment”).
Applicant further asserts the claim 1 is “analogous to the claims found patent-eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which were directed to a specific data structure that improved computer functionality” because “claimed database structure-with entries that affirmatively indicate detected signs do not indicate U-turn permissibility-is a specific technical improvement that enhances the accuracy of automated sign detection and driving behavior monitoring” (Amend. 8). However, the type of information in a database is not a database structure. Rather, Enfish court held the focus of Enfish’s claims were “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). As noted by the Enfish court, “traditional databases, such as ‘those that follow the relational model and those that follow the object oriented model,’ ’604 patent, col. 1, ll. 37–40, are inferior to the claimed invention.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337.
Citing again to the Enfish ’604 patent Specification (col. 2, ll. 10–13), the court explained “[t]he structural requirements of current databases require a programmer to predefine a structure and subsequent [data] entry must conform to that structure;” however, the “database of the present invention does not require a programmer to preconfigure a structure to which a user must adapt data entry.” Id. (alteration in original).
We emphasize that the self-referential database table considered by the court in Enfish was found to be a specific type of data structure that was designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory. Id. at 1339. Because the Enfish court found the claimed self-referential database table improved the way the computer stored and retrieved data, the court concluded the Enfish claims were not directed to an abstract idea, and thus ended the analysis at Alice step one. Id. at 1336. Here, unlike the claims of Enfish, the present claims are not directed to “a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table.” Enfish at 1336.
Applicant further asserts with respect to Step 2B (Amend. 9) that databases that contain negative information is not conventional. However, the claims do not require negative information, only that a sign stored therein “does not indicate U-turn permissibility”. For example, a parking sign “does not indicate U-turn permissibility” and also is not “negative information”. As noted above, the database is generic regardless of the type of information recorded therein. Furthermore, “‘. . . ‘Novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.’” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89). See also Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty”) (emphasis omitted); MPEP § 2106.05 (“Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”). Accordingly, Applicants arguments as to this point are unpersuasive.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, Applicant asserts Takahashi does not disclose the claimed U-turn sign database comprising an entry that "indicates that a traffic control device at the first location does not indicate U-turn permissibility,". Takahashi was never cited to disclose U-turn permissibility. Rather, limitations related to U-turn permissibility were taught by Nishimura, i.e., as cited in the non-final rejection of claim 4.
Finally, it is important to note that a sign or data field for a sign that “does not indicate U-turn permissibility”, under a BRI of the plain ordinary meaning of the phrase does not require “negative information” (Amend. 10). Any database entry for the location of a sign that does not indicate U-turn permissibility discloses this limitation, i.e., an absence of information also “does not indicate U-turn permissibility”.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, with respect to independent claims 1 and 20, the claims recite the abstract idea of:
detecting, by at least one processor of a computing device, a traffic control device in an image, wherein the image was captured by a camera, and wherein the camera is mounted on or in a vehicle;
determining, by the at least one processor, a first location of the vehicle;
querying, by the at least one processor, a U-turn sign database to produce a query result, wherein the query is based on the first location of the vehicle; and
determining, by the at least one processor, that the detected traffic control device does not indicate U-turn permissibility at the first location based on the query result comprising an entry corresponding to the first location, wherein the entry indicates that a traffic control device at the first location does not indicate U- turn permissibility.
Specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since the above limitations could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840–41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794–95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354–1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
For example, a human mind in place of the processor, for example a passenger in a vehicle, could view a sign, mentally determine a location of the vehicle, recall similar signs mentally and mentally determine the viewed sign does not apply to the vehicle the passenger is driving in. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III, A (“claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include . . . a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”)
Furthermore, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
Revised Guidance Step 2A – Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). This follows conclusion follows from the claim limitations which only recite a “processor”, “computing device”, “computer program product” and “database” outside of the abstract idea.
In addition, merely “[u]sing a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) (“simply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
In addition, the limitation “detecting, by at least one processor of a computing device, a traffic control device in an image, wherein the image was captured by a camera, and wherein the camera is mounted on or in a vehicle” constitutes insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gathers data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as “processor”, “computing device”, “computer program product” and “database” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A; Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., “mounted on or in a vehicle”, “U-turn sign database” claim 1). For example, the recitation that the database is used to store U-turn sign information is merely a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment”)
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 claims 2-4, the limitations “each entry of the database comprises an indication of a type of traffic control device . . . each indicated type of traffic control device in the database is a member of a family of traffic control devices . . . wherein the family . . . comprises a plurality of types of traffic control devices that have a similar visual appearance” (claims 2-3) since the metes and bounds of what distinguishes a type, family, and a sign that is similar in visual appearance is unclear and indefinite, i.e., the metes and bounds of what is and is not included in the limitation “similar in visual appearance” is unclear and indefinite such that the metes and bounds of what does and does not constitute a “family” is also unclear since claim 3 defines family in terms of visual appearance similarity, i.e., “similar” is a term of degree and the specification does not assign any particular boundaries on what this could include.
Claim 2 recites “each indicated type of traffic control device in the database is a member of a family of traffic control devices. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, of what is and is not a sign “type” / what is and is not a “family” of sign types is unclear and indefinite. No limiting definition is provided in the specification for these terms, although examples are provided, no clear definitions of the metes and bounds of each are provided. Accordingly, the terms are given their plain ordinary meaning wherein a type1 of sign can signs that share a common characteristic and a family2 can include a group of things related by common characteristics. Does Applicant intend for the terms to essentially mean a class and subclass of traffic control devices? Something more specific? Less specific? It is recommended to clarify, in the claim language, the metes and bounds of what is and is not included in a “type”, what is and is not included in a “family” and how this two definitions overlap if at all in order for the claims’ detailed references to these interrelated terms to be comprehensible.
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 1-5, 8, 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2950292A1 to Takahashi (Taka)(cited by Applicant in the IDS dated 12/22/23) in view of US 20170301318 to Nishimura (Nishi)
With respect to claims 1 and 20, Taka discloses a method, comprising:
detecting, by at least one processor of a computing device, a traffic control device in an image, wherein the image was captured by a camera, and wherein the camera is mounted on or in a vehicle;
(¶¶ 21-22, 24, 26; FIG. 1, 10-11 captured by imaging device 2; 13 “sign recognition means for detecting a sign from a video acquired from an imaging device mounted to a vehicle that travels on a road”)
determining, by the at least one processor, a first location of the vehicle;
(¶¶ 24, 29-30 “position measurement unit 15 measures the absolute position of the vehicle using a GPS . . . position estimation unit 16 estimates the position of the place where the vehicle exists on the road”; FIG. 1, 15-16)
querying, by the at least one processor, a sign database to produce a query result, wherein the query is based on the first location of the vehicle; and
(¶¶ 31, 54-58, FIG. 3 s107; FIG. 5; claim 1)
determining, by the at least one processor, that the detected traffic control device does not indicate U-turn permissibility at the first location based on the query result comprising an entry corresponding to the first location, wherein the entry indicates that a traffic control device at the first location does not indicate U- turn permissibility.
(i.e., the database retrieves signs near a vehicle position (i.e., via position estimation unit 16) (¶¶ 31, 43-45 including a variety of different types of signs (i.e., speed limit sign v. stop sign v. parking prohibition sign, etc., for example, the database shown in FIG .8 is queried via the process of FIG. based on the first location of the vehicle s106-s107, the query result including an entry corresponding to the first location, i.e., FIG. 8, sign ID “A” with location coordinates a first location (lat 35.75; long 139.843) for traffic control device A comprising an entry indicating that traffic control device A at this first location does not indicate U-turn permissibility, rather it indicates a speed limit).
However, Taka fails to explicitly disclose that the traffic sign database is a “u-turn sign database”. No limiting definition is provided for “u-turn database” and the term is not provided in the originally filed specification. The term “traffic sign database” is used (title, ¶ 6 “the present disclosure generally relate to . . . a method of . . . using a road location . . . and a traffic sign database”). In addition, the specification indicates the traffic sign database can include various types of signs, i.e., parking signs, u-turn signs, etc. (Spec. ¶ 58). Accordingly, a “u-turn sign database” includes traffic sign databases that include u-turn signs.
Nishi, from the same field of endeavor, discloses u-turn sign database, i.e., a traffic sign database (¶¶ 98, 104 image coincident with the sign image in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database and the picked up image data) including signs that indicate whether a U-turn is permissible (¶¶ 122-123 determining that the road sign 84 imaged by the camera 41 is the No U-turn sign 84bR corresponding to the No U-turn sign image 27bR in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database, as shown in FIG. 7, including different types of no u-turn signs, i.e., FIG. 3C-D; 129-135, 184).
Accordingly, it would been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing for the traffic sign database disclosed in Taka to include traffic signs that indicate whether a U-Turn is permissible or impermissible in view of the teachings of Nishi cited above detecting between subtle differences between u-turn signs in a sign database in order to provide accurate vehicle guidance. In addition, detection each of a variety of possible sign types including signs that indicate whether u-turns are permissible or impermissible in the context of the database of Taka depending on whether the sign is on the left or right side of the road (i.e., Taka, FIG. 8 “direction”) provides better driver notifications and puts the driver in a more comfortable driving state (Nishi, ¶¶ 11-12, 17). In addition, it is obvious that a traffic database should include U-turn sign types to provide accurate information to the driver and further provide improved AV assistance relative to a traffic sign database that does not include u-turn type sign types, i.e., traffic sign databases that facilitate autonomous driving require detection of all possible sign types that an AV may interact with in order to function properly.
With respect to claim 2, as best understood in view of the 112(b) rejection above, Taka in view of Nishi disclose each entry of the database comprises an indication of a type of traffic control device and a location; and wherein each indicated type of traffic control device in the database is a member of a family3 of traffic control devices.
(Taka, ¶¶ 26-27 The information that the sign represents is a type of the sign, for example; 31-32 The sign position determination unit 13 may further extract signs having the same type; 45-47 the sign recognition unit 11 may recognize the type of the sign by performing template matching after correcting a shape of a region of the detected sign. When a plurality of signs are detected, the sign recognition unit 11 . . . the type of sign may include a maximum speed sign . . . information that represents the type of the sign, such as a stop sign and a parking prohibition sign. The type of the sign may be represented by a code that is correlated to the above-described type of the sign in advance. In addition, for example, the map data storage unit 12 may hold information that the sign represents, for example, the maximum speed is 100 km/h, a temporary stop is necessary, parking is prohibited, and the like, for each type of the sign. Then, the sign recognition unit 11 may retrieve the information that the sign represents, which corresponds to the recognized type of the sign, from the map data storage unit 12. When the sign includes character information, such as a day and time, the sign recognition unit 11 may recognize the information that the sign represents by character recognition recognizes the types of all the detected signs)
(Taka, as noted above, family can mean any host of different things including merely things that have a common characteristic. Accordingly, any set or subset of the signs in map data storage 12, FIG. 1 may be a member of a family, i.e., signs with the same “road ID” or same “relative position”, distance from the road (FIG. 5), etc. (¶¶ 26-27, 31-32, 45-47))
With respect to claim 3, Taka in view of Nishi disclose the family of traffic control devices comprises a plurality of types of traffic control devices that have a similar visual appearance.
(Taka, ¶¶ 26-27, 31-32, 43-47, FIG. 8, i.e., “types” in this example can be 30, 40, 50 and 70 kmh speed limit signs (could also include ¶¶ 43-45 sign recognition unit 11 recognizes the types of all the detected signs . . . maximum speed . . . stop sign, parking prohibition sign) that have similar visual appearances – wherein the database family of left v right side of the road, i.e., “left” has a 30 kmh and 70 kmh type signs that have similar visual appearances)
With respect to claim 4, Taka in view of Nishi disclose the family of traffic control devices comprise traffic signs that indicate whether a U-turn is permissible or impermissible (Nishi, ¶¶ 98, 104 image coincident with the sign image in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database and the picked up image data; ¶¶ 122-123 determining that the road sign 84 imaged by the camera 41 is the No U-turn sign 84bR corresponding to the No U-turn sign image 27bR in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database, as shown in FIG. 7, including different types of no u-turn signs, i.e., FIG. 3C-D; 129-135, 184).
With respect to claim 5, Taka in view of Nishi disclose the query result comprises a data field indicating a condition, and wherein the method further comprises determining, by the at least one processor, whether the condition is satisfied by the vehicle at the first location.
(Taka, FIG. 8, relative position on left or right satisfied; distance condition further determines if the condition of sign conformance is satisfied at s109- s111 in FIG. 3 and corresponding description)
With respect to claim 8, Taka discloses generating, by the at least one processor, an alert to indicate that an action is or is not permissible at the first location.
(¶¶ 73 A storage unit of the driving support device 1, which is not shown in the drawing, may store audio data, and data of a video or an image, which is correlated to the type of the sign. By outputting information that the detected sign represents, the output unit 14 notifies a driver of the vehicle of the information that the detected sign represents. The output unit 14 may further output the road ID of the road at which the sign conforming to the detected sign targets. The output unit 14 may output the road map that the road ID represents, in place of the road ID; 74 the relative position is an arrangement position of the sign, which is represented by "right" or "left" with respect to the road, in the traveling direction of the vehicle, for example. However, the relative position may be a position represented by other methods”; 77 relative position of the sign to the road indicates whether the sign is arranged on the right side or arranged on the left side of the road in the traveling direction of the vehicle that travels on the road, for example. Then, when the conformity of the above described two relative positions is determined, the output unit 14 outputs the information that the sign detected from the video represents; 78 output or suppress notification to driver)
Taka fails to disclose the action is a U-Turn. Nishi, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a traffic sign database (¶¶ 98, 104 image coincident with the sign image in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database and the picked up image data) including signs that indicate whether a U-turn is permissible (¶¶ 122-123 determining that the road sign 84 imaged by the camera 41 is the No U-turn sign 84bR corresponding to the No U-turn sign image 27bR in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database, as shown in FIG. 7, including different types of no u-turn signs, i.e., FIG. 3C-D; 129-135, 184). Accordingly, it would been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing for the family of traffic control devices disclosed in Taka to include traffic signs that indicate whether a U-Turn is permissible or impermissible on view of the teachings of Nishi above detecting between subtle differences between u-turn signs in a sign database in order to provide accurate vehicle guidance. In addition, detection of u-turn signs can be considered permissible or impermissible in the context of the database of Taka depending on whether the sign is on the left or right side of the road (i.e., Taka, FIG. 8 “direction”) in order to provide better driver notifications and put the driver in a more comfortable driving state (Nishi, ¶¶ 11-12, 17). In addition, a traffic database should include U-turn sign types to provide accurate information to the driver and further provide improved AV assistance.
With respect to claim 11, Taka in view of Nishi disclose determining, by the at least one processor, a first road segment based on the first location; and wherein the query is based on the first road segment.
(Taka, road segments 201, 202, FIG. 4, FIG. 5 road ID, left. Right; FIG. 6-8 and 10-11 and corresponding descriptions; i.e., ¶¶ 27-28)
With respect to claim 12, Taka in view of Nishi disclose wherein an entry of the u-turn database comprises a first road segment identifier corresponding to the first road segment, a second road segment identifier corresponding to a second road segment, and an indication as to whether a u-turn ign at the location is applicable to a path of travel from the first road segment to the second road segment.
(Taka, Applicability of road segment is based on left/right determinations -- road segments 201, 202, FIG. 4, FIG. 5 road ID, left. Right; FIG. 6-8 and 10-11 and corresponding descriptions; i.e., ¶¶ 27-28; 73, 77-78)
(as modified by Nishi, ¶¶ 98, 104 image coincident with the sign image in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database and the picked up image data including signs that indicate whether a U-turn is permissible (¶¶ 122-123 determining that the road sign 84 imaged by the camera 41 is the No U-turn sign 84bR corresponding to the No U-turn sign image 27bR in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database, as shown in FIG. 7, including different types of no u-turn signs, i.e., FIG. 3C-D; 129-135, 184; i.e., detection of u-turn signs can be considered permissible or impermissible in the context of the database of Taka depending on whether the sign is on the left or right side of the road (i.e., Taka, FIG. 8 “direction”) in order to provide better driver notifications and put the driver in a more comfortable driving state (Nishi, ¶¶ 11-12, 17))
With respect to claim 14, Taka in view of Nishi disclose the first road segment is determined based on a distance travelled by the vehicle after the image containing the traffic control device was captured.
(Taka, ¶¶ 27-28, i.e., Absolute position distance change determines change in road segment ID, as shown in FIG. 5 and corresponding description)
With respect to claim 15, Taka in view of Nishi disclose selecting, by the at least one processor, the u-turn sign database from a set of databases4 based on at least one of the location and the type of traffic control device.
(Taka, FIG. 3, s106 location is used to select from data structures in map data storage unit 13 and corresponding description; FIG. 5-6 and 8 and corresponding descriptions)
(as modified by Nishi, ¶¶ 98, 104 image coincident with the sign image in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database and the picked up image data) including signs that indicate whether a U-turn is permissible (¶¶ 122-123 determining that the road sign 84 imaged by the camera 41 is the No U-turn sign 84bR corresponding to the No U-turn sign image 27bR in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database, as shown in FIG. 7, including different types of no u-turn signs, i.e., FIG. 3C-D; 129-135, 184)
With respect to claim 16, Taka in view of Nishi disclose the traffic control device corresponds to a u-turn sign and wherein the method further comprises
(Taka, i.e., sign position determination unit 13 includes sign database with sign entries including sign type, location, associated roads, sign information, (i.e., ¶¶ 43-45 “the types of all the detected signs . . . maximum speed . . . stop sign, parking prohibition sign”; 27 map data storage unit 12 stores road data including shapes and positions of roads, and sign data including positions and types of signs)
(as modified by Nishi, ¶¶ 98, 104 image coincident with the sign image in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database and the picked up image data) including signs that indicate whether a U-turn is permissible (¶¶ 122-123 determining that the road sign 84 imaged by the camera 41 is the No U-turn sign 84bR corresponding to the No U-turn sign image 27bR in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database, as shown in FIG. 7, including different types of no u-turn signs, i.e., FIG. 3C-D; 129-135, 184)
detecting that the vehicle performed a u-turn, the u-turn starting from a first road segment, the first road segment corresponding to the first location, determining, by the at least one processor, a second location of the vehicle, the second location corresponding to a second road segment on which the vehicle is driving
(Taka, i.e., tables FIG. 5-6 and 8 vehicle driving location indicated by “absolute position” corresponding to a road segment (i.e., 201, 204, FIG. 4) with a corresponding “Road ID” wherein with FIG. 5 three road segments are shown 100000, 100001, 100002 and corresponding descriptions; i.e., ¶¶ 27-28; 73, 77-78)
wherein the first road segment has a first road segment identifier and the second road segment has a second road segment identifier
(Taka, i.e., as cited above FIG. 5 three road segments are shown 100000, 100001, 100002)
However, Taka fails to disclose the sign is a U-turn sign.
Nishi, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a traffic sign database (¶¶ 98, 104 image coincident with the sign image in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database and the picked up image data) including signs that indicate whether a U-turn is permissible (¶¶ 122-123 determining that the road sign 84 imaged by the camera 41 is the No U-turn sign 84bR corresponding to the No U-turn sign image 27bR in the road sign database by performing pattern matching using the road sign database, as shown in FIG. 7, including different types of no u-turn signs, i.e., FIG. 3C-D; 129-135, 184). Accordingly, it would been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing for the family of traffic control devices disclosed in Taka to include traffic signs that indicate whether a U-Turn is permissible or impermissible on view of the teachings of Nishi above detecting between subtle differences between u-turn signs in a sign database in order to provide accurate vehicle guidance. In addition, detection of u-turn signs can be considered permissible or impermissible in the context of the database of Taka depending on whether the sign is on the left or right side of the road (i.e., Taka, FIG. 8 “direction”) in order to provide better driver notifications and put the driver in a more comfortable driving state (Nishi, ¶¶ 11-12, 17). In addition, a traffic database should include U-turn sign types to provide accurate information to the driver and further provide improved AV assistance.
With respect to claim 17, Taka in view of Nishi disclose wherein querying the database comprises querying the database to identify an entry that has a first data field including the first road segment identifier and a second data field including the second road segment identifier
(Taka, i.e., tables FIG. 5-6 and 8 vehicle driving location indicated by “absolute position” corresponding to a road segment (i.e., 201, 204, FIG. 4) with a corresponding “Road ID” wherein with FIG. 5 three road segments are shown 100000, 100001, 100002 and corresponding descriptions; i.e., ¶¶ 27-28; 73, 77-78)
With respect to claims 18-19, Taka in view of Nishi disclose
determining, by the at least one processor and based on a value of a third data field and a fourth data field (distance, left/right) in the identified entry, whether the U-turn is permissible or not permissible to a path of travel from the first road segment to the second road segment the third data field indicating applicability of the U-turn sign to the path of travel from the first road segment to the second road segment
(Taka, as modified by Nishi, i.e., tables FIG. 5-6 and 8 data fields of “direction” and “distance”, Fig. 8 has both, is a third data and fourth data field, respectively, which determines applicability of detected road signs to current paths of travel, wherein Nishi teaches the sign may be a U-turn sign as cited above, i.e., distance condition further determines if the condition of sign conformance is satisfied at s109, s110 in FIG. 3 and corresponding description; i.e., applicability of road segment is based on left/right determinations and distance determinations -- road segments 201, 202, FIG. 4, FIG. 5 road ID, left. Right; FIG. 6-8 and 10-11 and corresponding descriptions; i.e., ¶¶ 27-28; 73, 77-78)
(Taka, FIG. 13 s105, relative position of sign, s302, s303, s111 and ¶¶ 117-140, particularly ¶140 describing distances and sides of the sign to determine if the sign is applicable to the path of travel)
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taka in view of Nishi and further in view of US 20210089796 to Lu et al. (Lu)
With respect to claim 6, Taka in view of Nishi fails to disclose all limitations, but at least suggests determining a conditional time window (Taka, ¶¶ 26-27 When the sign includes character information, such as a day and time, the sign recognition unit 11 may recognize the information that the sign represents by character recognition recognizes the types of all the detected signs).
Lu, from the same field of endeavor discloses determining a sign condition specifies a time window, and wherein determining whether the condition is satisfied is based on the time at which the image was captured by the camera
(¶¶ 10-11 detect condition on traffic sign, determine if the condition is satisfied based on a current time; 49-60 processor 14 determines whether additional information indicating a condition associated with the message is detected in relation to the traffic sign (e.g., the conditions may be in the traffic sign itself or in proximity to the traffic sign). Essentially, step S14 is to determine whether the traffic sign is a conditional traffic sign meaning that the restriction or requirement or information of the conditional traffic sign only applies if certain condition as described in the traffic sign (or proximate to the traffic sign) is met (e.g., the restriction/requirement/information only applies to a specific type of vehicle, e.g., buses, or the restriction/requirement/information only applies during certain time period(s) of the day (from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.; FIG. 2-4 and corresponding description)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the teachings of Lu in the system of Taka in view of Nishi in order to parse and distill whether various signs are applicable to the instant vehicle in order to reduce distraction and risk to a driver while providing relevant alerts (Lu, ¶ 4, abstract).
With respect to claim 7, Taka in view of Nishi fails to disclose all limitations. Lu discloses the condition specifies a type of vehicle, and wherein determining whether the condition is satisfied is based on a class of vehicle to which the vehicle belongs.
(¶ 49 In step S14, the processor 14 determines whether additional information indicating a condition associated with the message is detected in relation to the traffic sign (e.g., the conditions may be in the traffic sign itself or in proximity to the traffic sign). Essentially, step S14 is to determine whether the traffic sign is a conditional traffic sign meaning that the restriction or requirement or information of the conditional traffic sign only applies if certain condition as described in the traffic sign (or proximate to the traffic sign) is met (e.g., the restriction/ requirement/information only applies to a specific type of vehicle, e.g., buses, or the restriction/requirement/information only applies during certain time period(s) of the day (from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement the teachings of Lu into the system of Taka in view of Nishi in order to parse and distill whether various signs are applicable to the instant vehicle in order to reduce distraction and risk to a driver while providing relevant alerts (Lu, ¶ 4, abstract).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taka in view of Nishi and further in view of US 20170073006 to Satomura (Sato)
With respect to claims 9-10, Taka in view of Nishi fails to disclose all limitations. Sato, from the same field of endeavor, discloses detection of a U-turn maneuver and an associated alert to the driver.
(FIG. 4-6, s95 FIG. 6 “provide warning regarding U-turn restriction direction and area”; s50 wide turn detection process; ¶¶ 102, 105-122; 9, FIG. 3, u-turn detected s150, s1160; FIG. 7, 141-142; claims 1-10)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to determine a vehicle performed a u-turn at a first location and alert the driver that an impermissible u-turn is performed, in view of the teachings of Sato above, in the system of Taka in view of Nishi, in order to improve awareness of the driver of the vehicle about rules and regulations of the road and to therefore improve safety (Sato, ¶ 29)
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 KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
1 Definition of “type” Cambridge dictionary, “a particular group of people or things that share similar characteristics and form a smaller division of a larger set” available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/type
2 Definition of “family” Merriam-Webster dictionary, definition 5 “group of things related by common characteristics” available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/family
3 No limiting definition is provided for “family” but could include, for example, visually similar signs (¶ 6 “visually similar family”), geolocated U-turn signs (¶ 34 “a geolocated U-turn sign family database”), similar signs (¶ 41 “a similar sign in the same family of traffic control devices”). It is unclear if a same “type” of sign corresponds to a same family. On one hand U-turn signs are a “type” and can be a family but Spec. ¶ 47 indicates there may be different types of sign within the same family (“family of traffic signs governing U-turns . . . other signs that may have a similar appearance . . . even if there is some uncertainty as to which traffic sign type within the family was detected”)
4 Under a BRI a database is an extremely broad term that merely refers to a structed set of data in a computer. Accordingly, nearly any query based retrieval structure will select from a set of basis to retrieve information. Here, a u-turn sign database is structured data that includes information about a u-turn sign.
Prosecution Insights