DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 8/1/2024 has been acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 12/21/2023.
Status of Application
Claims 1 and 6-7 are pending.
Claims 2-5 have been cancelled.
Claims 6-7 have been added.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 1/16/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/16/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 2-5 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the Title Objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Title Objection has been withdrawn.
With respect to the Objection to the Abstract, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Abstract has been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application, which have necessitated new analysis with new application of prior art, and the Office has supplied the new grounds for rejection attached below in the Final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 states “a first period, second period, third period, and fourth period” and support for these periods cannot be found in the specification. In fact, it appears that the traffic rules are continuously displayed is either normal display mode or extension display mode. It is not clear what these periods are, how these periods are calculated and compared, and when the Office looks into the specification, it appears that these steps and distinctions are new matter. Thus Claim 1, as currently presented appears to have new matter and fails to be properly supported in the specification, thus fails it written description requirement. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “the normal display mode including a first display period in which a first traffic rule corresponding to the image-recognized travel road sign is displayed and a second display period in which a second traffic rule corresponding to the map-based travel road sign is displayed” and the metes and bounds of this are unclear, thus indefinite. What periods are being claimed here and what are these first and second traffic rules. In this scenario, the GPS and image sign match, thus the traffic rule should be the same, correct? This step is based on the DRS and IRS signal being similar, thus in Figure 4 step S14 only the IRS would be displayed, yet the claims are also stating the DRS would be displayed for the same period thus it is unclear what is exactly being carried out. Are the traffic rules that correspond to both of these data sets, which are similar, BOTH being displayed, and if so, for the same period or different periods, congruent, alternating? As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus the claim is indefinite. When the Office looks into the specification, the claims do not match the flow diagrams since it appears in normal mode, when both data sets are gathered, as the claims require, only the IRS image is displayed (S16). The Office is going to interpret that when the signs match, that data will be displayed corresponding to the image rule. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 1 states “the extension display mode including a third display period in which the first traffic rule is displayed and a fourth display period in which the second traffic rule is displayed” and again what is the first and second traffic rule, and again, what is the third and fourth period? When the Office looks into the specification, and Figure 4, (S18) states the extension mode, but does not explain what two rules are being displayed, or for how long, or based on what mixture (longer or shorter and equaling the first and second period). Are all signs that are not similar, below a threshold, and not electro-optical, going to have a first and second traffic rule displayed for a third and fourth period? Further, there appears to be an amount of time for each period, yet these times are not known in advance, thus how is the addition of the first and second period, which again are indefinite, going to equal the third and fourth period, if they are not used? Is this a predetermined value or based on signs being measured? These periods do not appear supported in Figure 4, but maybe can be seen in Figure 3, yet there is no ending period to the equating of periods, or the lengths. Further, the spec say traffic rules are “continuously displayed” then again equating the periods are unclear, thus indefinite. As current presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter thus it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as any period of time. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 6 states “to display the traffic rule in the normal display mode in response to the determination that the image-recognized travel road sign is the electro-optical marker” and this limitation is unclear thus indefinite as in Claim 1, the normal display mode with periods is unclear, thus indefinite. The Office is going to interpret that when the signs match, that data will be displayed corresponding to the image rule. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 7 states “the first traffic rule and the second traffic rule indicate limit speed values, and the processor is further configured to recognize the limit speed values based on the image information by image-analysis” and while the Office understands that speed limit values would be the rules, as can be seen in Figures 1 and 3, it is again unclear how both are displayed during a first period, second period, third period, and fourth period, what these periods are, how these periods are calculated and compared so they are equal in length, thus the claims are indefinite. Further, the second traffic rule is based on map and GPS data, thus how is the second rule based on image analysis? This appears to contradict the GPS and map features and only rely on the image based features? As currently presented Claim 7 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus it is indefinite. When the Office looks into the specification, the periods are unclear, and further there are two separate ways to determine the single speed rule, one by GPS with map data and the other by images analysis. The Office is going to interpret this as such and use any period set of time. Appropriate action is required.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c