DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 12/23/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 8, 14, and 20 have been amended and claims 2-3, 15-16, and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 4-14, 17, and 19-20 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but some are not persuasive and some are considered moot.
Applicant’s arguments for rejections under 35 USC §101 are considered not persuasive. Applicant asserts “because none of the three factors described by M.P.E.P §2106(g) are applicable to limitation (1)… that limitation (i) does not amount to mere data gathering as alleged by the examiner in pages 11-12 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, as Applicant states for factor 3 in page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks, the limitation does not amount to necessary data gathering and outputting which would conclude that the limitation is, in fact, “mere data gathering.” Even if the limitation was not considered “mere data gathering” under Step 2A Prong Two, it would be considered “mere data gathering” under Step 2B because capturing odometry data is well known in the art.
Applicant asserts “amended independent claim 1 cannot be considered to be a mental process” because “the process of ‘capturing the odometry data…’ reflects technical processes that cannot be performed in the mind” in page 12 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, capturing odometry data was never considered an abstract idea.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed toward the “drivetrain encoder” in pages 13-14 of Applicant’s Remarks, Examiner agrees that the “drivetrain encoder” is a particular machine. However, the recitation of “drivetrain encoder” does not make the claim eligible under 35 USC §101. As stated in page 13 of Applicant’s remarks and paragraph [0025] of Applicant’s specification, encoder is commonly known in the art. Therefore, the limitation would be considered well known, routine, and conventional in the art and would fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated in the interview on 12/10/2025, the claims fail to positively recite an action or control using the determinations and captured data recited in claim 1. The vehicle is not caused to or prohibited from any action due to the determinations and captured data of claim 1.
Regarding the arguments for rejections under 35 USC §103, the arguments are considered moot as a new rejection has been outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objection the specification, Applicant has amended the abstract to overcome the objection. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §101, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejection. The rejections under 35 USC §101 are maintained as outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims have necessitated a new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“governor configured to control a speed” in claim 19. Applicant’s specification discloses “governor 69 may be embodied, for example, as a throttle control device that limits the position of a throttle (not shown) of the vehicle 11” in paragraph [0072].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 4-14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without adding significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Revised Guidance, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to a method and recites at least one step and claims 14-20 are directed to a vehicle that comprises a sensor, encoder, and electronic control unit. Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories (process and apparatus).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite a judicial exception.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below). Claim 1 recites:
A method for operating a vehicle, comprising:
capturing an image frame of an external environment of the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment;
capturing odometry data associated with the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment;
transmitting the image frame and the odometry data to an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) of the vehicle;
determining a local speed limit for the vehicle from the image frame of the external environment;
selecting a context of the external environment based upon the odometry data;
determining a global speed limit for the vehicle based upon the context;
determining an arbitrated speed limit as the local speed limit or the global speed limit, and
notifying a driver of the vehicle of the arbitrated speed limit,
wherein capturing the odometry data comprises capturing velocity data related to a number of stops and a velocity of the vehicle with a drivetrain encoder,
wherein determining the local speed limit further comprises extracting the local speed limit from a speed limit sign captured in the image frame and assigning a first confidence weight to the local speed limit, and
wherein determining the arbitrated speed limit comprises outputting the local speed limit or the global speed limit as the arbitrated speed limit based upon a comparison between the first confidence weight associated with the local speed limit and a second confidence weight associated with the global speed limit.
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations above constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to look at an image and read a speed limit sign to determine what number is written and further determine whether a driving context is residential, highway, or other driving contexts. If it is determined that the context is a residential area, then it can be determined that the speed should be slower than if the context were to be a highway and determine what speed the vehicle can safely travel to as the speed limit. Furthermore, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine how confident a reading of a sign is such as low confidence in rainy or obscured vision and high confidence in clear weather without obstructions and select a speed limit accordingly.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim, beyond the abstract idea, integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception (mental process). The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for operating a vehicle, comprising:
capturing an image frame of an external environment of the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment;
capturing odometry data associated with the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment;
transmitting the image frame and the odometry data to an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) of the vehicle;
determining a local speed limit for the vehicle from the image frame of the external environment;
selecting a context of the external environment based upon the odometry data;
determining a global speed limit for the vehicle based upon the context;
determining an arbitrated speed limit as the local speed limit or the global speed limit, and
notifying a driver of the vehicle of the arbitrated speed limit,
wherein capturing the odometry data comprises capturing velocity data related to a number of stops and a velocity of the vehicle with a drivetrain encoder,
wherein determining the local speed limit further comprises extracting the local speed limit from a speed limit sign captured in the image frame and assigning a first confidence weight to the local speed limit, and
wherein determining the arbitrated speed limit comprises outputting the local speed limit or the global speed limit as the arbitrated speed limit based upon a comparison between the first confidence weight associated with the local speed limit and a second confidence weight associated with the global speed limit.
The recitation of “vehicle” and “electronic control unit” are provided at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements recited fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim and merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. The limitations “capturing an image frame…,” “capturing odometry data,” and “extracting the local speed limit…” falls under “mere data gathering” which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The MPEP states insignificant extra-solution activity fails to integrate a judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application. Furthermore, the limitation of “notifying a driver…” is also considered insignificant post-solution activity and also fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the additional limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and must be further examined under Step 2B.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
In the instant application, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for operating a vehicle, comprising:
capturing an image frame of an external environment of the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment;
capturing odometry data associated with the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment;
transmitting the image frame and the odometry data to an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) of the vehicle;
determining a local speed limit for the vehicle from the image frame of the external environment;
selecting a context of the external environment based upon the odometry data;
determining a global speed limit for the vehicle based upon the context;
determining an arbitrated speed limit as the local speed limit or the global speed limit, and
notifying a driver of the vehicle of the arbitrated speed limit,
wherein capturing the odometry data comprises capturing velocity data related to a number of stops and a velocity of the vehicle with a drivetrain encoder,
wherein determining the local speed limit further comprises extracting the local speed limit from a speed limit sign captured in the image frame and assigning a first confidence weight to the local speed limit, and
wherein determining the arbitrated speed limit comprises outputting the local speed limit or the global speed limit as the arbitrated speed limit based upon a comparison between the first confidence weight associated with the local speed limit and a second confidence weight associated with the global speed limit.
The newly underlined additional limitation of “transmitting the image frame…” is equivalent to transmitting data over a network which has been considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) which falls under insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the recitation of “drivetrain encoder” to capture odometry data is also considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that encoders are used to measure motion. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification discloses “As is commonly known in the art, an encoder is a device that outputs an electrical signal that corresponds to motion” in paragraph [0025]. Therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional elements amount to nothing more than merely applying the abstract idea into a technological environment, insignificant extra-solution activity, and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and is ineligible for similar reasons. Specifically regarding claim 14, the limitations “image sensor,” “encoder,” “display,” and “data bus” are also provided at a high level of generality and fail to provide a specific technology that is integral to the claim. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 also merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention.
Claims 4-6 and 8-11 are dependent on claims 1 and 14 and inherit the abstract idea set forth in claims 1 and 14. No other technology has been recited in claims 3-6, 8-11, and 16 to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3-6, 8-11, and 16 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claims 1 and 14.
Claim 7, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recites “governing a speed of the vehicle to be less than or equal to the arbitrated speed limit” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine whether a current vehicle speed is less than or equal to the speed limit. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 7 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claims 12 and 13, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 1, recite “determining a new arbitrated speed limit…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a new speed limit when a context of driving environment changes or when a new speed limit signage post is observed. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 12 and 13 also do not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and are ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 1.
Claim 17 inherits the abstract idea set forth in claim 14 due to dependency. In addition, the limitation “steering wheel encoder” also merely amounts to the general application of the abstract idea into a technological environment and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. The limitation “capture trajectory data” is considered “mere data gathering” which has been ruled by the courts as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)) and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for similar reasons to claim 14.
Claim 20, in addition to the abstract idea set forth in claim 14, recites “decrease the first confidence weight… based upon a distance…” which is also an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. For example, One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine that a sign is too far away and guesses the speed limit which is correlated with a low level of confidence. No additional structure or technology has been recited to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 also does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for reasons stated above and for reasons similar to claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 7, 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamilarasan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0176957 A1; hereinafter Tamilarasan) in view of Heitzmann et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118432 A1; hereinafter Heitzmann), and Paszkowicz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0083035 A1; hereinafter Paszkowicz), Bigio et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0311559 A1; hereinafter Bigio), and Vigneau (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0186759 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tamilarasan discloses:
A method for operating a vehicle (system and techniques to enable control of vehicle based on speed limit, see at least [0002]), comprising:
capturing an image frame of an external environment of the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment (camera system 104 takes images of road and traffic signs on which vehicle is traveling, see at least [0024]);
capturing data associated with the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment (location sensor and range-rate sensors, see at least [0035]-[0036])
transmitting the image frame to an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) (processor 110 executes computer-executable instructions, see at least [0028]) of the vehicle (processor 110 can receive image data from camera system 104, see at least [0029]);
determining a local speed limit for the vehicle from the image frame of the external environment (image processor can process input image of traffic sign to determine a camera-based speed limit for the road, see at least [0041]);
selecting a context of the external environment based upon the data (speed-determination module 114 can use position data from location sensor to look up speed limit of road from map and contextual information, see at least [0035]);
determining a global speed limit for the vehicle based upon the context (map data provides speed limit based on contextual information including regional guidelines for speed limits, see at least [0037]);
Tamilarasan does not explicitly disclose:
odometry data
notifying a driver of the vehicle of the arbitrated speed limit
wherein capturing the odometry data comprises capturing velocity data related to a number of stops and a velocity of the vehicle with a drivetrain encoder,
wherein determining the local speed limit further comprises extracting the local speed limit from a speed limit sign captured in the image frame and assigning a first confidence weight to the local speed limit, and
wherein determining the arbitrated speed limit comprises outputting the local speed limit or the global speed limit as the arbitrated speed limit based upon a comparison between the first confidence weight associated with the local speed limit and a second confidence weight associated with the global speed limit
However, Heitzmann teaches:
capturing odometry data associated with the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment (odometry parameters (speed, acceleration) of the vehicle 1, see at least [0049]; information linked to vehicle such as speed, acceleration, and position is used, see at least [0004])
selecting a context of the external environment based upon the odometry data (determining road context attributes from processing images and odometry parameters of the vehicle, see at least [0049])
capturing a velocity of the vehicle (odometry parameters (speed, acceleration), see at least [0049])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan by adding the odometry context taught by Heitzmann with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to extract associated parameters from these road context attributes” and for detecting certain scenarios (see [0033]-[0034]).
Additionally, Paszkowicz teaches:
notifying a driver of the vehicle of the arbitrated speed limit (displays a speed limit symbol 15 corresponding to an effective speed limit determined by traffic sign recognition system, see at least [0066])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan and the odometry context taught by Heitzmann by adding the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “the driver can determine not only the current vehicle speed but also the effective speed limit” (see [0066]).
Additionally, Bigio teaches:
wherein capturing the odometry data comprises capturing velocity data related to a number of stops and a velocity of the vehicle with a drivetrain encoder (wheel encoders, see at least [0082]; trip statistics include number of stops, see at last [0141] and [0145])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, and the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz by adding the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to determine and store metrics of a trip (see [0026]).
Furthermore Vigneau,
determining an arbitrated speed limit as the local speed limit or the global speed limit (selecting speed limit associated with highest confidence index from speed limit by querying database on a basis of geographical location and speed limit from image, see at least [0039])
wherein determining the local speed limit further comprises extracting the local speed limit from a speed limit sign captured in the image frame and assigning a first confidence weight to the local speed limit (determining second speed limit by analyzing image obtained with sensor from vehicle and assigning confidence index with second speed limit, see at least [0039], and
wherein determining the arbitrated speed limit comprises outputting the local speed limit or the global speed limit as the arbitrated speed limit based upon a comparison between the first confidence weight associated with the local speed limit and a second confidence weight associated with the global speed limit (selecting speed limit associated with highest confidence index from speed limit by querying database on a basis of geographical location and speed limit from image, see at least [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz, and the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio by adding the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to obtain a legal speed limit with improved reliability” (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above and Tamilarasan further discloses:
governing a speed of the vehicle to be less than or equal to the arbitrated speed limit (speed-control module 324 controls speed of vehicle to be no greater than the composite speed limit by controlling the acceleration or braking of the vehicle, see at least [0045])
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above and Tamilarasan further discloses:
determining a new arbitrated speed limit when the context associated with a current arbitrated speed limit changes (speed limit may be changed due to temporary speed limit, see at least [0024])
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above and Tamilarasan further discloses:
determining a new arbitrated speed limit when a new speed limit sign is detected in the external environment (camera system takes images of the road and traffic signs which can provide indication of speed limit or temporary speed limit, see at least [0024])
Regarding claim 14, Tamilarasan discloses:
A vehicle (vehicle 102, see at least [0023]), comprising:
at least one image sensor configured to capture an image frame of an external environment of the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment (camera system 104 takes images of road and traffic signs on which vehicle is traveling, see at least [0024]);
capture data associated with the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment (location sensor and range-rate sensors, see at least [0035]-[0036]);
an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) of the vehicle (processor 110 executes computer-executable instructions, see at least [0028]) configured to:
determine a local speed limit for the vehicle from the image frame of the external environment by extracting the local speed limit from a speed limit sign captured in the image frame (image processor can process input image of traffic sign to determine a camera-based speed limit for the road, see at least [0041]);
select a context of the external environment based upon the data (speed-determination module 114 can use position data from location sensor to look up speed limit of road from map and contextual information, see at least [0035]);
determine a global speed limit for the vehicle based upon the context (map data provides speed limit based on contextual information including regional guidelines for speed limits, see at least [0037]), and
a data bus configured to transmit the image frame and the data to the ECU (communication bus of the vehicle, see at least [0027])
Tamilarasan does not explicitly disclose:
odometry data
a display configured to notify a driver of the vehicle of the arbitrated speed limit
assign a first confidence weight to the local speed limit
determine and output an arbitrated speed limit as the local speed limit or the global speed limit based upon a comparison between the first confidence weight associated with the local speed limit and a second confidence weight associated with the global speed limit
wherein the at least one encoder comprises a drivetrain encoder configured to capture velocity data related to a number of stops and a velocity of the vehicle
However, Heitzmann teaches:
at least one encoder configured to capture odometry data associated with the vehicle as the vehicle traverses the external environment (odometry parameters (speed, acceleration) of the vehicle 1, see at least [0049]; information linked to vehicle such as speed, acceleration, and position is used, see at least [0004])
select a context of the external environment based upon the odometry data (determining road context attributes from processing images and odometry parameters of the vehicle, see at least [0049])
capture a velocity of the vehicle (odometry parameters (speed, acceleration), see at least [0049])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan by adding the odometry context taught by Heitzmann with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to extract associated parameters from these road context attributes” and for detecting certain scenarios (see [0033]-[0034]).
Additionally, Paszkowicz teaches:
and output speed limit (displays a speed limit symbol 15 corresponding to an effective speed limit determined by traffic sign recognition system, see at least [0066])
a display configured to notify a driver of the vehicle of the arbitrated speed limit (display on graphical display device, see at least [0015]; displays a speed limit symbol 15 corresponding to an effective speed limit determined by traffic sign recognition system, see at least [0066])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan and the odometry context taught by Heitzmann by adding the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “the driver can determine not only the current vehicle speed but also the effective speed limit” (see [0066]).
Additionally, Bigio teaches:
wherein the at least one encoder comprises a drivetrain encoder configured to capture velocity data related to a number of stops (wheel encoders, see at least [0082]; trip statistics include number of stops, see at last [0141] and [0145])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, and the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz by adding the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to determine and store metrics of a trip (see [0026]).
Furthermore Vigneau,
assign a first confidence weight to the local speed limit (determining second speed limit by analyzing image obtained with sensor from vehicle and assigning confidence index with second speed limit, see at least [0039], and
determine and output an arbitrated speed limit as the local speed limit or the global speed limit based upon a comparison between the first confidence weight associated with the local speed limit and a second confidence weight associated with the global speed limit (selecting speed limit associated with highest confidence index from speed limit by querying database on a basis of geographical location and speed limit from image, see at least [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz, and the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio by adding the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to obtain a legal speed limit with improved reliability” (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above and Tamilarasan further discloses:
a governor configured to control a speed of the vehicle to be less than or equal to the arbitrated speed limit (speed-control module 324 controls speed of vehicle to be no greater than the composite speed limit by controlling the acceleration or braking of the vehicle, see at least [0045])
Claims 4-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamilarasan in view of Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Shimizu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0375418 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the odometry data comprises velocity data and trajectory data of the vehicle.
However, Shimizu teaches:
the odometry data comprises velocity data and trajectory data of the vehicle (position or travel trajectory is estimated using odometry information of own vehicle such as speed, yaw angle, and steering angle, see at least [0003])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz, the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio, and the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau by adding the odometry steering and speed information taught by Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the technique “is known” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the trajectory data comprises data of a steering wheel angle of the vehicle
However, Shimizu teaches:
the trajectory data comprises data of a steering wheel angle of the vehicle (trajectory estimated using steering angle, see at least [0003])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz, the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio, and the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau by adding the odometry steering information taught by Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the technique “is known” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the at least one encoder comprises a steering wheel encoder configured to capture trajectory data that includes data of a steering wheel angle of the vehicle
However, Shimizu teaches:
the odometry data comprises velocity data and trajectory data of the vehicle (position or travel trajectory is estimated using odometry information of own vehicle such as speed, yaw angle, and steering angle, see at least [0003])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz, the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio, and the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau by adding the odometry steering and speed information taught by Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the technique “is known” (see [0003]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamilarasan in view of Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, Vigneau, and Shimizu as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Cha (KR20150055361A; see reference N on PTO-892).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, Vigneau, and Shimizu teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the trajectory data of the vehicle comprises a number of turns that the vehicle has made
However, Cha teaches:
the trajectory data of the vehicle comprises a number of turns that the vehicle has made (when tracing a moving route of a vehicle, the number of turns of vehicle are acquired and stored, see at least page 5 paragraph 14 – page 6 paragraph 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the use of position and image sensors for contextual information verification of a speed limit taught by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the speed limit display taught by Paszkowicz, the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio, the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau, and the odometry steering information taught by Shimizu by adding the number of turns taught by Cha with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for calculating a position information based on a starting point (see page 6 paragraph 1).
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamilarasan in view of Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau as applied to claims 1 and 14 above and further in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0004078 A1; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the first confidence weight assigned to the local speed limit is decreased based upon a distance between the vehicle and the speed limit sign
However, Chen teaches:
the first confidence weight assigned to the local speed limit is decreased based upon a distance between the vehicle and the speed limit sign (for the i-TOF (indirect time of flight) image sensor, a lower confidence is set for a larger distance value, see at least [0160])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight disclosed by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the confidence weight taught by Paszkowicz, the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio, and the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau by adding the lower confidence for larger distances taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “Depth measurement precision of the i-TOF technology decreases as the detection distance increases, and the detection precision is lower when the i-TOF technology is applied to a long-distance detection scenario” (see [0004]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the ECU is configured to decrease the first confidence weight assigned to the local speed limit based upon a distance between the vehicle and the speed limit sign.
However, Chen teaches:
the ECU is configured to decrease the first confidence weight assigned to the local speed limit based upon a distance between the vehicle and the speed limit sign (for the i-TOF (indirect time of flight) image sensor, a lower confidence is set for a larger distance value, see at least [0160])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight disclosed by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the confidence weight taught by Paszkowicz, the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio, and the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau by adding the lower confidence for larger distances taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “Depth measurement precision of the i-TOF technology decreases as the detection distance increases, and the detection precision is lower when the i-TOF technology is applied to a long-distance detection scenario” (see [0004]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamilarasan in view of Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hubbard et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0326984 A1; hereinafter Hubbard).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, and Vigneau teaches the elements above and Tamilarasan further discloses:
the context of the external environment is selected from a group of contexts comprising: a city context (urban area speed limits, see at least [0066]), a rural context (rural area, see at least [0067]), and a highway context (map data provides map of routes for contextual information such as highways, see at least [0037]).
Tamilarasan does not disclose:
a parking lot context
However, Hubbard teaches:
a parking lot context (speed of vehicle may be limited when vehicle is moving in a parking lot, see at least [0016])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight disclosed by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the confidence weight taught by Paszkowicz, the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio, and the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau by adding the parking lot taught by Hubbard with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “the maximum speed of a vehicle may be limited when that vehicle is moving in a parking lot” and not just when traveling along roads (see [0016]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, Vigneau, and Hubbard teaches the elements above and Tamilarasan further discloses:
each context of the group of contexts is associated with a unique global speed limit (contextual information 208 includes regional policies for the position of the vehicle, see at least [0035] and [0037]; major arterial road in an urban area has a speed limit of 55mph, see at least [0066])
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamilarasan in view of Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, and Hubbard as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0144656 A1; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tamilarasan, Heitzmann, Paszkowicz, Bigio, Vigneau, and Hubbard teaches the elements above and Tamilarasan further discloses:
each context of the group of contexts is associated with a predetermined vehicle velocity (major arterial road in an urban area has a speed limit of 55mph and local roads have speed limit of 30mph, see at least [0066])
Tamilarasan does not disclose:
a predetermined number of turns of the vehicle
However, Hubbard teaches:
a predetermined number of turns of the vehicle (smart parking assist system can calculate the number of turns required until vehicle arrives at the exit, see at least [0069])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight disclosed by Tamilarasan, the odometry context taught by Heitzmann, the confidence weight taught by Paszkowicz, the number of stops and wheel encoder taught by Bigio, the selected speed based on confidence index taught by Vigneau, and the parking lot taught by Hubbard, by adding the number of turns taught by Hubbard with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to assist the vehicle to exit through the optimal exiting path” (see [0069]). Furthermore, determining a number of turns for a given path can be done on any trajectory, not just for a parking lot.
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662