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
The applicant has argued that amendments made to the independent claims overcome the currently rendered rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. These arguments are persuasive as the independent claims now contain limitations that discloses “a camera configured to acquire a camera image representing an environment around the vehicle including a lane marking around the vehicle” which represents an additional element that is sufficient to integrate the abstract idea recited in the claims into a practical application and therefore the claims are eligible. Accordingly, the corresponding rejections are hereby withdrawn
The applicant has argued that amendments made to the claims overcome the prior art rejections rendered under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). These arguments are moot, however, as a new grounds of rejection has been identified in a renewed search necessitated by said amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fowe (US 2020/0292338) in view of Urano (US 2020/0272832).
As per Claim 1:
Fowe discloses the following limitations:
“A vehicle comprising: a positioning information receiving device configured to output position information representing a current position of the vehicle; a camera configured to acquire a camera image representing an environment around the vehicle including land marking line around the vehicle; a processor configured to… generate probe data representing a road feature based on the camera image representing the environment around the vehicle; generate lane information representing a position of a lane in a road in which the vehicle was traveling when the road feature represented by the probe data was detected, based on the camera image representing the lane marking line around the vehicle”
Fowe Paragraph [0034] discloses a system that generates lane information based on recognition of lane markings as a vehicle travels along a path using a camera. Paragraph [0027] discloses a positioning system.
“transmit the lane information via a communication device and receive a determination result representing whether or not there is a transmission request for transmitting the probe data, which is determined based on the lane information, and transmit the probe data via the communication device when the determination result representing the transmission request is received”
Fowe Paragraph [0030] discloses a system that receives probe data in order to identify dangerous conditions in individual lanes, this data can be real-time and is therefore requested from the probes.
“wherein a map for automatic vehicular operation is generated or updated based on the transmitted probe data”
Fowe Paragraph [0037] discloses updating a map based on the data collected by a vehicle.
Fowe does not disclose the following limitations that Urano does disclose:
“…based on whether the current position of the vehicle represented by the position information is included in a collection target area...”
Urano Paragraph [0038] discloses determining the current lane of a vehicle and whether the vehicle needs to change lanes to arrive in a “collection target area” in order to begin collecting data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Fowe with the recognition of a current area as a collection target area disclosed by Urano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more efficient by ensuring data collection only takes place at relevant locations.
With regards to Claim 2, Fowe in view of Urano discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the lane information includes information representing whether the lane in which the vehicle travels is traveling on the leftmost side of the road, on the rightmost side of the road, or other than the leftmost and rightmost sides of the road.”
Fowe Paragraph [0064] discloses identifying whether a lane a vehicle is in is the left lane or center-right lane which demonstrates that all possible lane positions are accounted for included left-most, right-most, and any other lane position.
With regards to Claim 3, Fowe in view of Urano discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the lane information includes left side information representing a road feature partitioning the left end of the traveling lane relative to a direction of travel of the vehicle and right side information representing a road feature partitioning the right end of the traveling lane relative to the direction of travel of the vehicle.”
Fowe Paragraph [0034] discloses using lane markers to identify lanes and Paragraph [0064] discloses identifying which lanes in specific.
With regards to Claim 4, Fowe in view of Urano discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the processor is further configured to generate a group of probe data including a plurality of the probe data for each predetermined data collection period, determine whether or not the vehicle has moved between lanes in a road within the data collection period based on the information representing the lane marking line around the vehicle, and generate a first group of the probe data including a plurality of the probe data representing the road feature detected in a lane before movement between lanes and a second group of the probe data including a plurality of the probe data representing the road feature detected in a lane after movement between lanes, and a first group of the lane information including a plurality of the lane information representing a position of the lane before movement between lanes corresponding to the first group of the probe data and a second group of the lane information including a plurality of the lane information representing a position of a lane after movement between lanes corresponding to the second group of the probe data, when it has been determined that the vehicle has moved between lanes of the road within the data collection period”
Fowe Paragraph [0030] discloses identifying the individual lanes in which a probe vehicle was travelling in real-time which would include when the vehicle changes lanes.
As per Claim 5:
Fowe discloses the following limitations:
“A data collecting system comprising: a vehicle comprising: a positioning information receiving device configured to output position information representing a current position of the vehicle; a camera configured to acquire a camera image representing an environment around the vehicle including land marking line around the vehicle; a communication device; and a device processor configured to… generate probe data representing a road feature based on the camera image representing the environment around the vehicle; generate lane information representing a position of a lane in a road in which the vehicle was traveling when the road feature represented by the probe data was detected, based on the camera image representing the lane marking line around the vehicle,”
Fowe Paragraphs [0030]-[0034] disclose vehicles that represent probes that gather data that identifies lanes.
“transmit the lane information to a server via the communication device and receive, for the server, a determination result representing whether or not there is a transmission request for transmitting the probe data, which is determined based on the lane information, and transmit the probe data to the server via the communication device when the determination result representing the transmission request is received;”
Fowe Paragraph [0030] discloses a system that receives probe data in order to identify dangerous conditions in individual lanes, this data can be real-time and is therefore requested from the probes.
“and the server comprising: a server communication interface; and a server processor configured to generate the determination result based on the lane information received from the vehicle via the server communication interface and collection lane information representing a lane for which it is necessary to collect the probe data, and transmit the determination result to the vehicle via the server communication interface.”
Fowe Paragraph [0030] discloses a central server receiving probe data.
“based on the transmitted determination result, receive the probe data from the vehicle, and generate or update a map for automatic vehicular operation based on the received probe data”
Fowe Paragraph [0037] discloses updating a map based on the data collected by a vehicle.
Fowe does not disclose the following limitations that Urano does disclose
“…based on whether the current position of the vehicle represented by the position information is included in a collection target area...”
Urano Paragraph [0038] discloses determining the current lane of a vehicle and whether the vehicle needs to change lanes to arrive in a “collection target area” in order to begin collecting data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Fowe with the recognition of a current area as a collection target area disclosed by Urano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more efficient by ensuring data collection only takes place at relevant locations.
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 Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/JOAN T GOODBODY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667