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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 18-20, “an inter-road angle indicating an angle between a second road intersecting the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, and a virtual road orthogonal to the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned” should read “an inter-road angle indicating an angle between a second road intersecting the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned[[,]] and a virtual road orthogonal to the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned”.
Claim 2, lines 1-3, “wherein the processor determines… whether the inter-road angle that is calculated is no less than 30◦” should read “wherein the processor determines… whether or not the inter-road angle that is calculated is or more” to maintain consistency in the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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- are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted step is recognizing the traffic sign from the image information.
Claim 1, lines 14-15, recites “an information display face of the traffic sign that is recognized” and lines 22-24, recites “determining… whether the traffic sign that is recognized corresponds to a traffic sign related to the first road”. The claim omits an essential step of defining the recognition process it references. For example, the preamble states the device is for “recognizing a traffic sign provided on a road”, which is treated as intended use under MPEP 2111.02 and thus nonlimiting. Lines 11-12, recites “calculating, when a traffic sign is recognized from the image information…”, which amounts to mere conditional language for the calculation step without defining what constitutes the recognition process.
The specification, paragraph 12, describes the omitted step identified above as essential in that recognition of the traffic sign is required to generate and output related traffic rules to the display device. The claim contains no such positive step for recognizing the traffic sign from the image data, yet repeatedly references the result of this undefined process (“the traffic sign that is recognized”). This omission creates a gap in the method, as the claim relies on the result of a step that is not recited, making one of ordinary skill in the art unable to ascertain the scope of what constitutes a “traffic sign that is recognized” and, therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Examiner suggests amending the claims to include a positive step of “recognizing a traffic sign from the image information acquired in a vicinity of the intersection regarding which entry is planned” prior to the calculating steps.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claims 1-4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 15-16, recites “the second virtual plane is a plane perpendicular to a first road on which the vehicle is traveling and includes a reference line in a direction of travel on the first road”, which is indefinite. The claim requires the second virtual plane to be both “perpendicular to the first road” and “include a reference line in a direction of travel on the first road.” It is unclear if the second virtual plane is meant to be defined perpendicularly to any point on the first road itself (e.g., at 90 degrees from edges, surfaces, and at any orientation), or if Applicant intended to mean that the second virtual plane is perpendicular to the reference line on the first road (see specification, paragraphs 0023, “center line of the road”, and Fig. 3, VS2). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of what constitutes the “second virtual plane” as claimed.
For examination purposes, the limitations will be interpreted to mean that the second virtual plane is a plane perpendicular to a first road on which the vehicle is traveling and is defined along a reference line in a direction of travel on the first road.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). These claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above rejections.
The closest prior art of record is as follows:
Kim et al. (KR 20230152899 A), (hereinafter Kim), teaches a device for recognizing a traffic sign provided on a road, the device comprising:
a camera that is installed in a vehicle, and that acquires image information forward of the vehicle (Kim, pg. 4, lines 23-27, “The sensor unit 100 can detect signs (hereinafter referred to as “signs”) related to driving roads, traffic conditions, and speed limits using one or more sensors. Here, the traffic situation includes other vehicles, infrastructure, and types of roads detected by the sensor unit 100, and the types of 25 roads include intersections, crosswalks, and highways. One or more sensors include cameras, radar, lidar, and ultrasonic sensors.”);
a processor that performs various types of information processing, wherein the processor is configured to execute identifying, based on a map information, an intersection that the vehicle is planned to enter, calculating, when a traffic sign is recognized from the image information acquired in a vicinity of the intersection regarding which entry is planned, an inter-virtual-plane angle indicating an angle formed by a first virtual plane and a second virtual plane, in which the first virtual plane is a plane orthogonal to an information display face of the traffic sign that is recognized, and the second virtual plane is a plane perpendicular to a first road on which the vehicle is traveling and includes a reference line in a direction of travel on the first road, and determining, based on the inter-virtual-plane angle that is calculated, whether the traffic sign that is recognized corresponds to a traffic sign related to the first road (Kim, pgs. 4 and 5, lines 32-36 and 1-15, respectively, “The calculation unit 120 can calculate the yaw angle of the sign. Here, the yaw angle means an angle rotated from the X or Y axis. The calculation unit 120 may calculate the angle at which the front of the sign is rotated based on the front of the vehicle. For example, at a four-way intersection, the front of the sign installed on the road is parallel to the front of the vehicle, so the 35 yaw angle of the sign is It can be calculated as follows… The determination unit 130 determines that the sign is valid on the driving road if the yaw angle of the sign is within a preset angle. When the recognition unit 110 recognizes a three-way intersection, the determination unit 130 determines that the sign is unconditionally valid. Here, a three-way 10 intersection is a road where only left or right turns are possible. In the case of a three-way intersection, the speed limit displayed on one sign usually indicates the speed limit for all three roads. When the recognition unit 110 recognizes a four-way intersection, the determination unit 130 determines that the sign is valid on the driving road if the amount of change in the yaw angle of the sign is within a preset range.”).
Kim does not teach “a storage device in which map information, including information regarding a road intersection angle indicating an angle formed by two roads intersecting at an intersection, is stored; and calculating, based on information of the road intersection angle at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, an inter-road angle indicating an angle between a second road intersecting the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, and a virtual road orthogonal to the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, and determining, based on the inter-virtual-plane angle that is calculated and the inter-road angle that is calculated, whether the traffic sign that is recognized corresponds to a traffic sign related to the first road,” as recited in claim 1.
Furuta et al. (JP 2004272694 A), (hereinafter Furuta), teaches teaches a device for recognizing a traffic sign provided on a road, the device comprising:
a camera that is installed in a vehicle, and that acquires image information forward of the vehicle (Furuta, pg. 4, lines 28-33,“The imaging unit 11 is, for example, a device having a built-in imaging device such as a CCD camera. The imaging unit 11 captures an image of a landscape developed near the front of an automobile on which the sign recognition device 1 is mounted, and acquires an image. The target 30 detection unit 12 detects, as a recognition target, an image corresponding to a traffic light or a road sign from the captured image using a known method such as color extraction and pattern matching.”);
a processor that performs various types of information processing, wherein the processor is configured to execute identifying, based on a map information, an intersection that the vehicle is planned to enter, calculating, when a traffic sign is recognized from the image information acquired in a vicinity of the intersection regarding which entry is planned, an inter-virtual-plane angle indicating an angle formed by a first virtual plane and a second virtual plane, in which the first virtual plane is a plane orthogonal to an information display face of the traffic sign that is recognized, and the second virtual plane is a plane perpendicular to a first road on which the vehicle is traveling and includes a reference line in a direction of travel on the first road, and determining, based on the inter-virtual-plane angle that is calculated, whether the traffic sign that is recognized corresponds to a traffic sign related to the first road (Furuta, pg. 9, lines 31-34, “The recognition target object selection unit 25 measures the width (w) and the height (h) of the recognition target portion in addition to the flatness (H0 / W0) read from the memory, and calculates these values in Equation 4 below. To calculate the angle B between the traveling direction vector Vc of the vehicle and the front direction of the traffic light or the road sign.”, pgs. 10 and 11, lines 36-39 and 1-2, respectively, “Next, the recognition target object selection unit 25 selects a traffic signal or a road sign whose calculated angle B is equal to or smaller than the predetermined angle C as a traffic signal or a road sign (recognition target) related to the traffic of the own vehicle (step). S13). In addition, a traffic signal or a road sign in which the calculated angle B is larger than the predetermined angle C is excluded from a recognition target as a traffic signal or a road sign irrelevant to the traffic of the own vehicle.”).
Furuta does not teach “a storage device in which map information, including information regarding a road intersection angle indicating an angle formed by two roads intersecting at an intersection, is stored; and calculating, based on information of the road intersection angle at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, an inter-road angle indicating an angle between a second road intersecting the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, and a virtual road orthogonal to the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, and determining, based on the inter-virtual-plane angle that is calculated and the inter-road angle that is calculated, whether the traffic sign that is recognized corresponds to a traffic sign related to the first road,” as recited in claim 1.
Osawa (US 20160305793 A1) teaches a storage device in which map information, including information regarding a road intersection angle indicating an angle formed by two roads intersecting at an intersection, is stored (Osawa, pg. 2, paragraph 0018, “The narrow-angle branch intersection determination section 21a is a program module that causes the control section 20 to implement a function of determining whether or not the guide target intersection is a narrow-angle branch intersection. That is, in the case where three or more roads are connected to the guide target intersection and the intersection angle between two adjacent roads (the value of one of the intersection angles with a smaller absolute value) is narrow, a map that indicates the guide target intersection is not easily visually recognizable. Thus, in the embodiment, such a guide target intersection is determined as a narrow angle branch intersection, and an enlarged view of a map of the narrow-angle branch intersection is displayed with a horizontal enlargement rate and a vertical enlargement rate adjusted.”).
Osawa does not teach “calculating, based on information of the road intersection angle at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, an inter-road angle indicating an angle between a second road intersecting the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, and a virtual road orthogonal to the first road at the intersection regarding which entry is planned, and determining, based on the inter-virtual-plane angle that is calculated and the inter-road angle that is calculated, whether the traffic sign that is recognized corresponds to a traffic sign related to the first road,” as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR LEVI HANSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 (ET).
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CONNOR L HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights