DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to communications filed on 10/11/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending in the instant application. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. The Examiner changed the word “colour” to “color”; “neighbouring” to “neighbor” and similar. An Office Action on the merits follows here below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Regarding independent claim 1, dependent claims 4, 5 and 13; the phrase "and/or" renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (at least in the alternative) thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
At independent claim 1, the claim recites: “1. A method for real-time detection of road markings (2, 4), in particular road edge markings, dashed lines and/or lane boundary lines, on a road surface, wherein the method for real-time detection comprises…” The Examiner is unclear if the road edge markings are dashed lines and lane boundary lines or are the road edge markings dashed lines or lane boundary lines because the subsequent segmenting calculations are drawn to “road image sections” which one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret as any road marking in a specific road environment. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Additionally at claim 1; the claim recites: “… wherein the segmentation is preferably carried out by an image recognition method and/or based on sensor data of a sensor, for example a radar sensor, lidar sensor or IR sensor;…” at line 15. It is unclear to the Examiner what preference is to be considered in view of the segmentation calculation. Is the Examiner to consider image recognition and sensor data or is the Examiner to consider image recognition or sensor data using the proceeding sensors? Further, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation: “… wherein the colour image is preferably made up of N’xM’ pixels, wherein N’ is at least more than 5 times, preferably more than 10 times, in particular more than 100 times, larger than N, and/or wherein M’ is at least more than 5 times, preferably more than 10 times, in particular more than 100 times, larger than M.” It is unclear to the Examiner which calculation is being claimed. For clarification, is the integer larger than N, and where M’ is more than five times? Is the integer larger than N, or M’ is more than five times? Which preference is claimed; where M' is 5 times or more than 10 times? Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claim 5 recites the limitation: “… during segmentation according to step c), traffic objects which have preferably been determined using image recognition methods and/or detected by a sensor, for example a radar sensor, lidar sensor or IR sensor, are preferably filtered out of the colour channel image by means of image recognition algorithms, for example.” It is unclear to the Examiner which calculation is being claimed. For clarification, what image recognition preference is to be considered in view of the segmentation calculation of the traffic objects? Further, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites “…wherein the driver assistance system is configured for real-time detection, in accordance with the method according to claim 1, of road markings (2, 4), in particular road edge markings, dashed lines and/or lane boundary lines, on a road surface…” The Examiner is unclear if the real-time detection is configured according to the dashed lines and lane boundary lines or road edge markings are dashed lines or lane boundary lines because the subsequent segmenting calculations are drawn to “road image sections” which one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret as any road marking in a specific road environment. Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Additionally, claim 13 recites: “… wherein the segmentation is preferably carried out by an image recognition method and/or based on sensor data of a sensor, for example a radar sensor, lidar sensor or IR sensor…” It is unclear to the Examiner what preference is to be considered in view of the segmentation calculation. Is the Examiner to consider image recognition and sensor data or is the Examiner to consider image recognition or sensor data using the proceeding sensors? Further, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
There are no outstanding prior art rejections of claims 1-15 forwarded herewith this Office Action.
Claim 1 is would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIA M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1583. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Stephen (Steve) Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
MIA M. THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2665
/MIA M THOMAS/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights