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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 6 - 7 of claim 1 recite, in part, “identify wall bottom portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels corresponding to host vehicle travelling road which is a road” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --identify wall bottom portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels corresponding to a host vehicle travelling road which is a road-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 10 - 11 of claim 1 recite, in part, “identify wall high portion pixels which are portions higher than height of the host vehicle travelling road” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --identify wall high portion pixels which are portions higher than a height of the host vehicle travelling road-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 6 - 7 of claim 3 recite, in part, “identifying wall bottom portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels corresponding to host vehicle travelling road which is a road” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --identifying wall bottom portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels corresponding to a host vehicle travelling road which is a road-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 11 - 12 of claim 3 recite, in part, “identifying wall high portion pixels which are portions higher than height of the host vehicle” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --identifying wall high portion pixels which are portions higher than a height of the host vehicle-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 7 - 8 of claim 4 recite, in part, “identifying wall bottom portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels corresponding to host vehicle travelling road which is a road” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --identifying wall bottom portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels corresponding to a host vehicle travelling road which is a road-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 12 - 13 of claim 4 recite, in part, “identifying wall high portion pixels which are portions higher than height of the host vehicle” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --identifying wall high portion pixels which are portions higher than a height of the host vehicle-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. 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 - 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 recites the limitation "the front of a host vehicle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the front of a host vehicle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the front of a host vehicle" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be withdrawn from the rejection if its base claim overcomes the rejection.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claims are directed towards determining that an intersecting road exists in an image that includes roads and walls existing in front of a vehicle, which is an abstract idea.
The claims recite, at a high level of generality, (i) acquiring information indicating road pixels which are pixels corresponding to roads included in an image… and wall pixels which are pixels corresponding to walls included in the image, the road pixels and the wall pixels being generated from the image, (ii) identifying wall bottom portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels corresponding to [a] host vehicle travelling road which is a road on which the host vehicle is travelling based on the road pixels and the wall pixels, the pixels corresponding to the host vehicle travelling road being included in the road pixels, the wall bottom portion pixels being included in the wall pixels, (iii) identifying wall high portion pixels which are portions higher than [a] height of the host vehicle travelling road by a predetermined value or more based on the road pixels and the wall pixels, the wall high portion pixels being included in the wall pixels, (iv) identifying wall high edge portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels other than the wall pixels based on the road pixels and the wall pixels, the wall high edge portion pixels being included in the wall high portion pixels, and (v) determining that an intersecting road which is a road intersecting the host vehicle travelling road exists in a position of the pixels other than the wall pixels which are adjacent to the wall high edge portion pixels when the pixels other than the wall pixels are the road pixels.
The limitation of “acquiring information indicating road pixels which are pixels corresponding to roads included in an image… and wall pixels which are pixels corresponding to walls included in the image, the road pixels and the wall pixels being generated from the image”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an “intersecting road detection device comprising a processor configured to:” (see claim 1) and a “non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process” (see claim 4) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of the aforementioned generic computer components, the claimed acquiring information indicating road pixels and wall pixels included in an image encompasses a user observing an image that includes roads and walls existing in front of a vehicle and performing an evaluation, judgment and/or opinion by mentally recognizing or identifying (acquiring) portions/pixels of the image that correspond to roads and portions/pixels of the image that correspond to walls. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Similarly, the limitation of “identifying wall bottom portion pixels… based on the road pixels and the wall pixels…”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an “intersecting road detection device comprising a processor configured to:” (see claim 1) and a “non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process” (see claim 4) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of the aforementioned generic computer components, the claimed identifying wall bottom portion pixels encompasses a user observing an image that includes roads and walls existing in front of a vehicle and performing an evaluation, judgment and/or opinion by mentally recognizing (identifying) portions/pixels of the image corresponding to a wall(s) that are adjacent to portions/pixels of the image corresponding to a road that the vehicle is on. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Likewise, the limitations of “identifying wall high portion pixels… based on the road pixels and the wall pixels…” and “identifying wall high edge portion pixels… based on the road pixels and the wall pixels…”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an “intersecting road detection device comprising a processor configured to:” (see claim 1) and a “non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process” (see claim 4) nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of the aforementioned generic computer components, the claimed identifying wall high portion pixels and wall high edge portion pixels encompasses a user observing an image that includes roads and walls existing in front of a vehicle and performing an evaluation, judgment and/or opinion by mentally recognizing (identifying) portions/pixels of the image corresponding to a wall(s) and its boundary that are adjacent to and higher than portions/pixels of the image corresponding to a road that the vehicle is on. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Comparably, the limitation of “determining that an intersecting road… exists in a position of the pixels other than the wall pixels which are adjacent to the wall high edge portion pixels when the pixels other than the wall pixels are the road pixels”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting an “intersecting road detection device comprising a processor configured to:” (see claim 1) and a “non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process” (see claim 4) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of the aforementioned generic computer components, the claimed determining that an intersecting road exists encompasses a user observing an image that includes roads and walls existing in front of a vehicle and performing an evaluation, judgment and/or opinion by mentally concluding (determining) that road portions/pixels of the image that are adjacent to the boundary of the wall portions/pixels of the image that are higher than and adjacent to portions/pixels of the image corresponding to a road that the vehicle is on belong to an intersecting road, i.e., recognizing that an intersecting road is located behind/adjacent to a wall in the image. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of: “[an] intersecting road detection device comprising a processor”, “an image obtained by shooting the front of a host vehicle” and “[a] non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process”.
The limitations of “[an] intersecting road detection device comprising a processor” and “[a] non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of determining that an intersecting road exists in an image that includes roads and walls existing in front of a vehicle in a computer environment. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Further, the limitation of “an image obtained by shooting the front of a host vehicle” is mere pre-solution activity, data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, this limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. This limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and/or outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “[an] intersecting road detection device comprising a processor” “an image obtained by shooting the front of a host vehicle” and “[a] non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process” do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components and/or merely perform insignificant pre extrasolution activity, mere data gathering. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept The claims are not patent eligible.
In addition, with regards to dependent claim 2, the Examiner asserts that claim 2 is also directed to the abstract idea of determining that an intersecting road exists in an image that includes roads and walls existing in front of a vehicle and that dependent claim 2 merely further limits the abstract idea claimed in independent claim, for example by further identifying when the portions/pixels in the image that are adjacent to the wall high edge portion pixels do not belong to an intersecting road.
However, the Examiner asserts that a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea and that none of the limitations of the dependent claims considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims merely instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claims are not eligible.
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 - 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama U.S. Publication No. 2021/0019536 A1 in view of Myers et al. U.S. Publication No. 2018/0022347 A1.
- With regards to claims 1, 3 and 4, Motoyama discloses a road detection device comprising a processor configured to perform a process; (Motoyama, Figs. 1 - 3, 5, 7, 8, 17 & 18, Pg. 1 ¶ 0009 - 0012, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0040 and 0046, Pg. 11 ¶ 0161 - 0167, Pg. 17 ¶ 0287 - Pg. 18 ¶ 0297) a road detection method; (Motoyama, Figs. 1, 2, 8 & 17, Pg. 1 ¶ 0009 - 0012, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0040 and 0046, Pg. 11 ¶ 0161 - 0167) and a non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process (Motoyama, Figs. 3, 5, 7 & 18, Pg. 1 ¶ 0010, Pg. 17 ¶ 0287 - Pg. 18 ¶ 0297) comprising: acquiring information indicating road pixels which are pixels corresponding to roads included in an image obtained by shooting the front of a host vehicle and wall pixels which are pixels corresponding to walls included in the image, the road pixels and the wall pixels being generated from the image; (Motoyama, Figs. 1 - 5, 7, 8, 12, 14 & 17, Pg. 1 ¶ 0003 and 0009, Pg. 2 ¶ 0038 - 0040, Pg. 3 ¶ 0059 - 0060, Pg. 5 ¶ 0088, Pg. 11 ¶ 0163 - 0167, Pg. 15 ¶ 0250) identifying wall bottom portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels corresponding to host vehicle travelling road which is a road on which the host vehicle is travelling based on the road pixels and the wall pixels, the pixels corresponding to the host vehicle travelling road being included in the road pixels, the wall bottom portion pixels being included in the wall pixels; (Motoyama, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 & 14, Pg. 1 ¶ 0009 - 0011, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0040, Pg. 3 ¶ 0047 and 0052, Pg. 4 ¶ 0074, Pg. 5 ¶ 0078, Pg. 11 ¶ 0163 - 0167, Pg. 14 ¶ 0225, Pg. 15 ¶ 0247 - 0250) identifying wall high portion pixels which are portions higher than height of the host vehicle travelling road by a predetermined value or more based on the road pixels and the wall pixels, the wall high portion pixels being included in the wall pixels; (Motoyama, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 8 & 12, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0040, Pg. 3 ¶ 0047 and 0052, Pg. 10 ¶ 0150, Pg. 11 ¶ 0163 - 0167, Pg. 14 ¶ 0221 - 0225) and identifying wall high edge portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels other than the wall pixels based on the road pixels and the wall pixels, the wall high edge portion pixels being included in the wall high portion pixels. (Motoyama, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 8 & 12, Pg. 2 ¶ 0037 - 0040, Pg. 3 ¶ 0047 and 0052, Pg. 10 ¶ 0150, Pg. 11 ¶ 0163 - 0167, Pg. 14 ¶ 0221 - 0225) Motoyama fails to disclose explicitly an intersecting road detection device; an intersecting road detection method; and determining that an intersecting road which is a road intersecting the host vehicle travelling road exists in a position of the pixels other than the wall pixels which are adjacent to the wall high edge portion pixels when the pixels other than the wall pixels are the road pixels. Pertaining to analogous art, Myers et al. disclose an intersecting road detection device comprising a processor configured to perform a process; (Myers et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 & 7 - 9, Pg. 1 ¶ 0014 - 0016, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0029 and 0033, Pg. 4 ¶ 0036, Pg. 6 ¶ 0050 - 0051, Pg. 7 ¶ 0057 - 0058 and 0064 - 0065, Pg. 9 ¶ 0089 - 0096) an intersecting road detection method; (Myers et al., Abstract, Fig. 8, Pg. 1 ¶ 0014 - 0016, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0029 and 0033, Pg. 4 ¶ 0036, Pg. 6 ¶ 0050 - 0051) and a non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process (Myers et al., Figs. 1 & 7 - 9, Pg. 7 ¶ 0057 - 0060 and 0064 - 0065, Pg. 9 ¶ 0089 - 0096) comprising: acquiring information indicating road pixels which are pixels corresponding to roads included in an image obtained by a host vehicle and wall pixels which are pixels corresponding to walls included in the image, the road pixels and the wall pixels being generated from the image; (Myers et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 - 5, 7 & 8, Pg. 1 ¶ 0014 - 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0020 - 0021 and 0024, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0029, Pg. 3 ¶ 0033 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0034, Pg. 4 ¶ 0036 - 0037, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046, Pg. 6 ¶ 0051 - 0052) identifying wall bottom portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels corresponding to host vehicle travelling road which is a road on which the host vehicle is travelling based on the road pixels and the wall pixels, the pixels corresponding to the host vehicle travelling road being included in the road pixels, the wall bottom portion pixels being included in the wall pixels; (Myers et al., Figs. 2 - 4 & 8, Pg. 1 ¶ 0016, Pg. 3 ¶ 0028 - 0029, Pg. 3 ¶ 0032 - Pg. 4 ¶ 0037, Pg. 5 ¶ 0046, Pg. 6 ¶ 0051 - 0052) identifying wall high portion pixels which are portions higher than height of the host vehicle travelling road by a predetermined value or more based on the road pixels and the wall pixels, the wall high portion pixels being included in the wall pixels; (Myers et al., Figs. 3 & 4, Pg. 1 ¶ 0016, Pg. 3 ¶ 0028 - 0029 and 0033, Pg. 4 ¶ 0036, Pg. 6 ¶ 0051 - 0052, Pg. 8 ¶ 0075 - 0076) identifying wall high edge portion pixels which are portions adjacent to pixels other than the wall pixels based on the road pixels and the wall pixels, the wall high edge portion pixels being included in the wall high portion pixels; (Myers et al., Figs. 3 & 4, Pg. 1 ¶ 0016, Pg. 3 ¶ 0028 - 0029 and 0033, Pg. 4 ¶ 0036, Pg. 6 ¶ 0051 - 0052, Pg. 8 ¶ 0075 - 0076) and determining that an intersecting road which is a road intersecting the host vehicle travelling road exists in a position of the pixels other than the wall pixels which are adjacent to the wall high edge portion pixels when the pixels other than the wall pixels are the road pixels. (Myers et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 - 5 & 8, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0020, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0029 and 0033, Pg. 4 ¶ 0036, Pg. 6 ¶ 0050 - 0051, Pg. 8 ¶ 0075 - 0076 and 0080 [“gaps or variations in the shoulders are hints for road stubs. Similarly, the presence, absence or variations in barriers or curbs near a roadway may also be used to identify locations where entries or exits to a roadway are present”, “Based on the presence, absence or variation in road markings, shoulders, curbs, barriers, driving surfaces, and/or the like, the stub component 104 may identify locations of stubs or connecting driving surfaces… curbs or barriers located near a roadway may also be used to determine whether a stub or other entry or exit is present at a specific location”, “intersecting streets may be detected based on the lack of curbs and/or the continuation of a driving surface in a direction at least partially perpendicular to the roadway 300”, “a break in a shoulder may occur where another driving surface connects with the current roadway. For example, if a dirt or gravel shoulder is located next to the pavement of a roadway, there may be a break in the dirt or gravel shoulder where a paved roadway, entry, or exit, connects to the current roadway. Curbs or barriers may also have breaks at locations where other vehicles are able to exit or enter the current roadway… In one embodiment, the stub detection component 710 is configured to detect an intersecting roadway by detecting a driving surface that connects the current roadway to a one or more of a driveway, parking lot, or cross street” and “detect an intersecting roadway by detecting a driving surface that connects the current roadway to a one or more of a driveway, parking lot, or cross street.” The Examiner asserts that, in Myers et al., an intersecting road is detected when a driving surface, i.e., road, is found next to, for example, a break in a barrier adjacent to the roadway on which the vehicle is located.]) Motoyama and Myers et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards image processing systems that detect road surfaces in images captured by a camera mounted on a vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Motoyama with the teachings of Myers et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Motoyama with the well-known and applicable technique Myers et al. applied to a comparable device. Determining that an intersecting road exists in a position of the pixels other than the wall pixels which are adjacent to the wall high edge portion pixels when the pixels other than the wall pixels are the road pixels, as taught by Myers et al., would enhance the base device of Motoyama by improving its overall understanding of the environment surrounding the vehicle and thus achieving a more comprehensive, robust, safe and reliable driver assistance system since when roads intersecting with a road the vehicle is travelling on exist they would be detected as intersecting roads and thereby enable the base device of Motoyama to better recognize, predict and respond to situations around the vehicle while the vehicle traverses the environment. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Motoyama that their system detects objects, such as roads, around the vehicle and recognizes and predicts situations related to the vehicle based on various pieces of information, such as a configuration and road surface condition of a surrounding road, in order to plan routes, actions and operations of the vehicle, see at least page 7 paragraphs 0105 and 0112 - 0113 and page 8 paragraphs 0115 - 0124 of Motoyama. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that an intersecting road would be determined to exist in a position of the pixels other than the wall pixels which are adjacent to the wall high edge portion pixels when the pixels other than the wall pixels are the road pixels so as to improve the base device of Motoyama by improving its overall understanding of the environment surrounding the vehicle in order to achieve a more comprehensive, robust, safe and reliable driver assistance system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Motoyama with Myers et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 3 and 4.
- With regards to claim 2, Motoyama in view of Myers et al. disclose the intersecting road detection device according to claim 1. Motoyama fails to disclose explicitly wherein the processor is configured to determine that the intersecting road does not exist in the position of the pixels other than the wall pixels which are adjacent to the wall high edge portion pixels when the pixels other than the wall pixels are not the road pixels. Pertaining to analogous art, Myers et al. disclose wherein the processor (Myers et al., Fig. 9, Pg. 7 ¶ 0057 - 0058 and 0064 - 0065, Pg. 8 ¶ 0084, Pg. 9 ¶ 0089 - 0096) is configured to determine that the intersecting road does not exist in the position of the pixels other than the wall pixels which are adjacent to the wall high edge portion pixels when the pixels other than the wall pixels are not the road pixels. (Myers et al., Abstract, Figs. 2 - 5 & 8, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0020, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0029 and 0033, Pg. 4 ¶ 0036, Pg. 6 ¶ 0050 - 0051, Pg. 8 ¶ 0075 - 0076 and 0080 [“intersecting streets may be detected based on the lack of curbs and/or the continuation of a driving surface in a direction at least partially perpendicular to the roadway 300”, “a break in a shoulder may occur where another driving surface connects with the current roadway. For example, if a dirt or gravel shoulder is located next to the pavement of a roadway, there may be a break in the dirt or gravel shoulder where a paved roadway, entry, or exit, connects to the current roadway. Curbs or barriers may also have breaks at locations where other vehicles are able to exit or enter the current roadway… In one embodiment, the stub detection component 710 is configured to detect an intersecting roadway by detecting a driving surface that connects the current roadway to a one or more of a driveway, parking lot, or cross street” and “detect an intersecting roadway by detecting a driving surface that connects the current roadway to a one or more of a driveway, parking lot, or cross street.” The Examiner asserts that, in Myers et al., an intersecting road is detected when a driving surface, i.e., road, is found next to, for example, a break in a barrier adjacent to the roadway on which the vehicle is located. Thus, if a driving surface is not found next to the break in the barrier adjacent to the roadway on which the vehicle is located then an intersecting road is determined to not exist there.])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akamine et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0133465 A1; which is directed towards an intersecting road estimation device and method, wherein a road edge of an intersecting road that intersects with a road on which a vehicle is traveling is detected based on image data captured of an area in front of the vehicle.
Ikoma et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0410459 A1; which is directed towards an environment recognition device and method for a vehicle, wherein an edge of a blind spot region at an intersection is detected based on image data captured by a camera mounted on the vehicle.
Zhang U.S. Publication No. 2010/0098297 A1; which is directed towards a method and system for detecting a clear path of travel for a vehicle, wherein the clear path of travel for the vehicle is detected based on a segmentation-based analysis of an image captured by a camera located on the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights