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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-223084, filed on December 28, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 12/26/24 and 07/06/26 have been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
"controller configured to" in claims 1, 8, and 15
"roadside apparatus that is configured to" in claims 1, 8, and 15
“information storage apparatus that is configured to” in claims 1, 8, and 15
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 8, and 15 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.
In claims 1, 8, and 15, the claim language “a roadside apparatus that is configured to notify target persons of presence of vehicles and/or pedestrians” is written in a way that renders the scope of the claim unclear. In particular, it is unclear who the “target persons” could be referring to. Are the target persons:
The ones around the roadside apparatus who are alerted by the roadside apparatus to vehicles approaching,
Drivers of the vehicles who receive image data from the roadside apparatus containing vehicles of pedestrians, or
Individual at the server or information processing apparatus who have image data from the roadside apparatus containing vehicles of pedestrians displayed to them, or
Is this language meant to encompass all three scenarios?
Explanation is required and amendment to clarify one of the routes if all three are not intended for the scope of “target persons”.
Paragraph [003] of the specification indicates that target persons may include “pedestrians and drivers or driving assistants of vehicles”, but this does not appear to be a limited set.
For examination purposes the target persons will be interpreted as any person with an interest in the data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIKAWA et al. (US 20230401841 A1 Hereinafter “ISHIKAWA”) in the view of Berkemeier (US 20200202147 A1 Hereinafter “Berkemeier”).
Regarding claim 1, ISHIKAWA teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a controller (Fig. 12: The server acts as the information processing apparatus and contains a controller as seen in Fig 2 (Control device is part of the same #4 server as seen in Fig. 12)) configured to:
when a vehicle approaches a roadside apparatus that is configured to notify target persons of presence of vehicles and/or pedestrians (Fig. 11 shows a vehicle approaching the roadside apparatus (1b). The roadside apparatus 1b is a roadside unit which detects objects on the road “so that the roadside unit 1 detects an object-matter (s) such as a motor vehicle(s), a pedestrian(s) and/or the like by the roadside sensor 107” [0030]. The roadside unit can also transmit determination results of abnormality to the server “Moreover, the roadside unit 1 also consecutively performs abnormality determination of the roadside unit on its own, and consecutively transmits the determination result to the server as will be described later” [0032]. These results can be displayed to a user “The notification contents can be displayed on a display, for example, on the server side for each determination result itself, for example” [0037]. This display acts as a notification to target persons of a presence of vehicles (the abnormality describes if the detected vehicle location is similar to the saved location for the detected vehicle, the detected vehicle location is considered the presence of a vehicle). So the roadside unit is configured to notify target persons by sending the result to the server and displaying on said server to a target user), acquire an image of the roadside apparatus captured by an imager provided in the vehicle ([0058]: “The object-matter detection unit 118 receives a signal transmitted from the roadside sensor 107, and detects, by using the signal, an object-matter existing within a detection area of the roadside sensor 107”. This object detection matter can be detected by the vehicle and can include a roadside apparatus 1b “It is required to configure in such a manner that the roadside unit 1b is an object-matter which can be detected by a roadside sensor 107a provided with the roadside unit 1a and by the onboard surroundings monitoring sensor 101 provided with the motor vehicle 2)” [0152]);
acquire([0183]: “Here, as for the detection results, included in both are: the object-matter detection results (each including the information related to a relative location of an object-matter) being outputs of the object-matter detection units 115 and 118a”);
calculate, based on the(Fig. 4, [0081]: “The absolute location calculation unit 119 calculates an absolute location of an object-matter by using an object-matter detection result having been calculated at Step S101 and placement location information 121 of the roadside unit 1”); and
transmit the calculated position information to a memory of an information storage apparatus that is configured to store position information on the roadside apparatus ([0176]: “In addition, the absolute location calculation unit 119a transmits its absolute location information of an object-matter having been calculated to the server 4”. The server has a memory for holding this absolute location information a seen in Fig. 12, the absolute location of the roadside apparatus is considered “position information on the roadside apparatus”).
ISHIKAWA does not expressly disclose obtaining the position of the vehicle at the time of imaging determining the relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside apparatus for determining a location of the roadside apparatus.
However, Berkemeier teaches obtaining the position of the vehicle at the time of imaging ([0042]: "The vehicle 20 is then operated along the roadway while capturing video images, as is indicated at 64. The video may be recorded while driving and simultaneously recording the car's position and orientation with the controller 24 including an integrated DGPS/IMU system with high accuracy") and determining the relative distance between the vehicle and a roadside object for determining a location of the roadside object ([0043]: "After the video image is captured, a relative position between the car and the objects along the roadway is determined as is indicated at 66. Using the recorded information, each sign's position relative to the car (the car frame), at each time, is computed using standard methods").
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ISHIKAWA’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Berkemeier’s method of determining roadside object positions using vehicles position and relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside object because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Berkemeier’s method of determining roadside object positions using vehicles position and relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside object permits a method of accurately determining the position of roadside objects using images captured from a vehicle. This known benefit in Berkemeier is applicable to ISHIKAWA’s roadside apparatus location determination system as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to determining the location of roadside objects using image analysis. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying ISHIKAWA’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Berkemeier’s method of determining roadside object positions using vehicles position and relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside object would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Berkemeier’s method of determining roadside object positions using vehicles position and relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside object in determining the location of roadside objects using image analysis and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, Berkemeier further teaches wherein the vehicle position information includes a latitude and a longitude of the vehicle at the time of capturing the image ([0042]: "The vehicle 20 is then operated along the roadway while capturing video images, as is indicated at 64. The video may be recorded while driving and simultaneously recording the car's position and orientation with the controller 24 including an integrated DGPS/IMU system with high accuracy". Position of the vehicle is detected using DGPS which locates the vehicles using longitude and latitude), and the relative position information includes a distance between the vehicle and the roadside ([0043]: "After the video image is captured, a relative position between the car and the objects along the roadway is determined as is indicated at 66. Using the recorded information, each sign's position relative to the car (the car frame), at each time, is computed using standard methods". The position relative to the car would include a distance and direction to determine the signs position) and a direction of the roadside ([0035]: “Using the recorded information, a position of each sign 30, 32 relative to the vehicle 20 at each time is computed using methods that account for the speed and orientation of the vehicle 20 relative to the signs 30, 32”. If the orientation is relative to the signs then the direction of the roadside object viewed from a vehicle at a time of capturing an image is determined. If used in conjunction with ISHIKAWA, then the roadside objects would be roadside apparatuses, hence the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier teaches the content of claim 2).
The rationale for this combination is similar to the rationale for the claim 1 combination due to similar methods of combination (using Berkemeier’s method for obtaining vehicle location includes longitude and latitude alongside distance between the vehicle and sign and the signs direction) and similar benefits (a method of accurately determining the position of roadside objects using images captured from a vehicle).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, ISHIKAWA further teaches, wherein the information storage apparatus is the roadside apparatus or a server apparatus (Fig. 12: The server acts as the information processing apparatus. The “or” limitation means the list is disjunctive meaning only one of the listed items need taught)
Regarding claim 8, the content of claim 8 is similar to the content of claim 1, with the additional teachings of the information processing apparatus and the roadside apparatus are configured to communicate with each other. ISHIKAWA also discloses this information ([0045]: “The server 4 comprises the control device 113 as illustrated in FIG. 2. The control device 113 includes a general computer and/or an electronic control unit (Electronic Control Unit, ECU), and comprises a processor 111, a memory 112 and a communications interface 103. The communications interface is connected by means of a signal line(s) and/or radio communications to the roadside unit 1 and to a communications interface inside of the motor vehicle 2”). Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1, along with the additional teachings above.
Regarding claim 9, the content of claim 9 is similar to the content of claim 2, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the content of claim 14 is similar to the content of claim 7, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the content of claim 15 is similar to the content of claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the content of claim 16 is similar to the content of claim 2, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 2.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 12, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIKAWA et al. (US 20230401841 A1 Hereinafter “ISHIKAWA”) in the view of Berkemeier (US 20200202147 A1 Hereinafter “Berkemeier”) in further view of Lee et al. (US 20100161224 A1 Hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, ISHIKAWA further teaches wherein
the controller is configured to:
acquire, from the information storage apparatus, registered position information on the roadside apparatus ([0193]: “To be specific, the placement location information 121b of the roadside unit 1b is defined as reference information, which is compared with a detection result(s) stored in the detection result database 127a of the roadside unit 1a”. The reference information acts as the registered position information);
calculate a position deviation between a position of the roadside apparatus indicated by the registered position information and a position of the roadside apparatus indicated by the calculated position information ([0192]: “The abnormal position determination unit 128 performs abnormality determination of the roadside unit 1a by using the detection result database 127a of the roadside unit 1a in which pieces of data received from the object-matter detection unit 118a provided with the roadside unit 1a and the absolute location calculation unit 119a provided therewith are stored, and by using placement location information 121b of the roadside unit 1b (the server 4 comprises both of them)”. The abnormality determination acts as the position deviation); and
determine whether the position deviation exceeds a threshold value ([0195]: “The abnormal position determination unit 128 outputs a determination result as “normal” at Step S402 on the basis of the determination result at Step S401 when it is normal. In addition, the abnormal position determination unit 128 outputs a determination result as “abnormal” at Step S403 when the determination result at Step S401 is not normal”. Normal is defined by a threshold “In such a case, a plurality of object-matters also results in existing in the detection result, and so, by generalizing the case, it is defined that abnormality determination is performed as normal “when an object-matter is contained in the detection result which is coincident with the target object 3.” [0085] In addition, due to the tradeoffs between a detection error(s) of a sensor and detection accuracy thereof in general, the coordinates of the both parties are not made coincident with each other in a strict sense. For this reason, it is determined that both parties' absolute locations are coincident with each other, “when the distance between both parties' absolute locations themselves is at a predetermined first threshold value or less,” for example” [0084-0085]. Therefore abnormal determination would exceed this threshold), and
the transmission of the calculated position information includes transmitting the calculated position information to the memory of the information storage apparatus ([0176]: “In addition, the absolute location calculation unit 119a transmits its absolute location information of an object-matter having been calculated to the server 4”. The server has a memory for holding this absolute location information a seen in Fig. 2).
The combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier does not expressly disclose updating the position in the memory by transmission based on being above the threshold.
However, Le teaches updating a position in a memory by transmission when a difference is above a threshold ([0039]: “First of all, when the absolute position is firstly acquired, the absolute position and an odometry value at a corresponding time point are stored together. Thereafter, when the absolute position is acquired again, a distance between the acquired absolute position and the stored absolute position is calculated. If a calculated distance is larger than a specific threshold value, the orientation is corrected as described above, and the stored absolute position and odometry value are updated with a value at a current time point”. To be updated the new position and value must be transmitted into the memory).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Lee’s method of updating the position based on the distance between the stored and detected absolute distance being larger than a threshold because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Lee’s method of updating the position based on the distance between the stored and detected absolute distance being larger than a threshold permits accurately updating the known position of an object to be closer to its actual location. This known benefit in Lee is applicable to the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier’s roadside apparatus location determination system as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to comparing stored position information to detected information to determine differences. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Lee’s method of updating the position based on the distance between the stored and detected absolute distance being larger than a threshold would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Lee’s method of updating the position based on the distance between the stored and detected absolute distance being larger than a threshold in comparing stored position information to detected information to determine differences and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, in addition, Berkemeier further teaches
wherein
the vehicle position information includes an orientation of the vehicle at the time of capturing the image ([0042]: "The vehicle 20 is then operated along the roadway while capturing video images, as is indicated at 64. The video may be recorded while driving and simultaneously recording the car's position and orientation with the controller 24 including an integrated DGPS/IMU system with high accuracy"),
the relative position information includes a direction of the roadside ([0035]: “Using the recorded information, a position of each sign 30, 32 relative to the vehicle 20 at each time is computed using methods that account for the speed and orientation of the vehicle 20 relative to the signs 30, 32”. If the orientation is relative to the signs, then the direction of the roadside object viewed from a vehicle at a time of capturing an image is determined alongside the orientation of the sign. If used in conjunction with ISHIKAWA, then the roadside objects would be roadside apparatuses, hence the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier teaches the content of claim 2), and
the calculated position information includes a calculated orientation of the roadside ([0043]: "After the video image is captured, a relative position between the car and the objects along the roadway is determined as is indicated at 66. Using the recorded information, each sign's position relative to the car (the car frame), at each time, is computed using standard methods").
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify ISHIKAWA’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Berkemeier’s method of determining roadside object positions and orientations using vehicles position and orientation and relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside object because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Berkemeier’s method of determining roadside object positions and orientations using vehicles position and orientation and relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside object permits a method of accurately determining the position of roadside objects using images captured from a vehicle. This known benefit in Berkemeier is applicable to ISHIKAWA’s roadside apparatus location determination system as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to determining the location of roadside objects using image analysis. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying ISHIKAWA’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Berkemeier’s method of determining roadside object positions and orientations using vehicles position and orientation and relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside object would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Berkemeier’s method of determining roadside object positions and orientations using vehicles position and orientation and relative distance between the vehicle and the roadside object in determining the location of roadside objects using image analysis and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the content of claim 10 is similar to the content of claim 3, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the content of claim 12 is similar to the content of claim 5, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, the content of claim 17 is similar to the content of claim 3, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, the content of claim 19 is similar to the content of claim 5, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 5.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIKAWA et al. (US 20230401841 A1 Hereinafter “ISHIKAWA”) in the view of Berkemeier (US 20200202147 A1 Hereinafter “Berkemeier”) in further view of Lee et al. (US 20100161224 A1 Hereinafter “Lee”) in further view of Herman et al. (US 20200398797 A1 Hereinafter “Herman”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the threshold value for the position deviation ([0195]: “The abnormal position determination unit 128 outputs a determination result as “normal” at Step S402 on the basis of the determination result at Step S401 when it is normal. In addition, the abnormal position determination unit 128 outputs a determination result as “abnormal” at Step S403 when the determination result at Step S401 is not normal”. Normal is defined by a threshold “In such a case, a plurality of object-matters also results in existing in the detection result, and so, by generalizing the case, it is defined that abnormality determination is performed as normal “when an object-matter is contained in the detection result which is coincident with the target object 3.” [0085] In addition, due to the tradeoffs between a detection error(s) of a sensor and detection accuracy thereof in general, the coordinates of the both parties are not made coincident with each other in a strict sense. For this reason, it is determined that both parties' absolute locations are coincident with each other, “when the distance between both parties' absolute locations themselves is at a predetermined first threshold value or less,” for example” [0084-0085]. Therefore abnormal determination would exceed this threshold)([0058]: “The object-matter detection unit 118 receives a signal transmitted from the roadside sensor 107, and detects, by using the signal, an object-matter existing within a detection area of the roadside sensor 107”. This object detection matter can be detected by the vehicle and can include a roadside apparatus 1b “It is required to configure in such a manner that the roadside unit 1b is an object-matter which can be detected by a roadside sensor 107a provided with the roadside unit 1a and by the onboard surroundings monitoring sensor 101 provided with the motor vehicle 2)” [0152]).
The combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee does not expressly disclose a difference threshold being based off the distance resolution of a camera.
However, Herman teaches a difference threshold being based off the distance resolution of a camera ([0058]: “Yet further alternatively, the computer 105 can identify a pixel as occluded when the reflectivity difference of the pixel exceeds a reflectivity difference threshold determined based on a light receipt resolution of the time-of-flight sensor 200 and/or the image sensor 110 or the depth difference of the pixel exceeds a depth difference threshold determined based on a distance resolution of the time-of-flight sensor 200 and/or the image sensor 110”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Herman’s method of basing a difference threshold based off camera resolution because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Herman’s method of basing a difference threshold based off camera distance resolution permits a method of selecting threshold values considering the camera distance resolution so differences can be accurately based on accurate operating ranges for the camera. This known benefit in Herman is applicable to the combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee’s roadside apparatus location determination system as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to capturing image information from sensors mounted on vehicles for positioning objects. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Herman’s method of basing a difference threshold based off camera distance resolution would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Herman’s method of basing a difference threshold based off camera distance resolution in capturing image information from sensors mounted on vehicles for positioning objects and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, the content of claim 11 is similar to the content of claim 4, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, the content of claim 18 is similar to the content of claim 4, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 4.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIKAWA et al. (US 20230401841 A1 Hereinafter “ISHIKAWA”) in the view of Berkemeier (US 20200202147 A1 Hereinafter “Berkemeier”) in further view of Lee et al. (US 20100161224 A1 Hereinafter “Lee”) in further view of HERBST (US 20180357494 A1 Hereinafter “HERBST”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, in addition, ISHIKAWA further teaches
wherein the information storage apparatus is configured to store a registered ([0193]: “To be specific, the placement location information 121b of the roadside unit 1b is defined as reference information, which is compared with a detection result(s) stored in the detection result database 127a of the roadside unit 1a”. The reference information acts as the registered position information),
the controller is further configured to:
calculate an ([0192]: “The abnormal position determination unit 128 performs abnormality determination of the roadside unit 1a by using the detection result database 127a of the roadside unit 1a in which pieces of data received from the object-matter detection unit 118a provided with the roadside unit 1a and the absolute location calculation unit 119a provided therewith are stored, and by using placement location information 121b of the roadside unit 1b (the server 4 comprises both of them)”. The abnormality determination acts as the position deviation); and
determine whether the ([0195]: “The abnormal position determination unit 128 outputs a determination result as “normal” at Step S402 on the basis of the determination result at Step S401 when it is normal. In addition, the abnormal position determination unit 128 outputs a determination result as “abnormal” at Step S403 when the determination result at Step S401 is not normal”. Normal is defined by a threshold “In such a case, a plurality of object-matters also results in existing in the detection result, and so, by generalizing the case, it is defined that abnormality determination is performed as normal “when an object-matter is contained in the detection result which is coincident with the target object 3.” [0085] In addition, due to the tradeoffs between a detection error(s) of a sensor and detection accuracy thereof in general, the coordinates of the both parties are not made coincident with each other in a strict sense. For this reason, it is determined that both parties' absolute locations are coincident with each other, “when the distance between both parties' absolute locations themselves is at a predetermined first threshold value or less,” for example” [0084-0085]. Therefore abnormal determination would exceed this threshold), and
the transmission of the calculated position information includes transmitting the calculated position information to the memory of the information storage apparatus
Lee further teaches transmitting position data based on the difference being over a threshold amount ([0039]: “First of all, when the absolute position is firstly acquired, the absolute position and an odometry value at a corresponding time point are stored together. Thereafter, when the absolute position is acquired again, a distance between the acquired absolute position and the stored absolute position is calculated. If a calculated distance is larger than a specific threshold value, the orientation is corrected as described above, and the stored absolute position and odometry value are updated with a value at a current time point”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Lee’s method of updating the position based on the distance between the stored and detected absolute distance being larger than a threshold because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, Lee’s method of updating the position based on the distance between the stored and detected absolute distance being larger than a threshold permits accurately updating the known position of an object to be closer to its actual location. This known benefit in Lee is applicable to ISHIKAWA’s roadside apparatus location determination system as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to comparing stored position information to detected information to determine differences. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the combination of ISHIKAWA and Berkemeier’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include Lee’s method of updating the position based on the distance between the stored and detected absolute distance being larger than a threshold would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate Lee’s method of updating the position based on the distance between the stored and detected absolute distance being larger than a threshold in comparing stored position information to detected information to determine differences and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee does not expressly disclose comparing a stored orientation to a detected orientation and determining if the difference is above a threshold.
However, HERBST teaches comparing a stored orientation to a detected orientation and determining if the difference is above a threshold ([0040]: “For example, a deviation (e.g., above a pre-determined threshold) of the driver's head orientation from the reference orientation in later captured images may mean the driver is not correctly operating the vehicle (e.g., is not looking forward at the road) and the command generated based on the detection of this deviation may be used to alert the driver, to take control of systems associated with the vehicle (e.g., brakes), etc\”).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include HERBST’s method of determining an orientation difference to a threshold between a determined and reference orientation because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. More specifically, HERBST’s method of determining an orientation difference to a threshold between a determined and reference orientation permits a method of determining if a detected objects orientation is different then what is stored previously (reference). This known benefit in HERBST is applicable to the combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee’s roadside apparatus location determination system as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using images to determine the orientation of objects in images. Therefore, it would have been recognized that modifying the combination of ISHIKAWA, Berkemeier, and Lee’s roadside apparatus location determination system to include HERBST’s method of determining an orientation difference to a threshold between a determined and reference orientation would have yielded predictable results because (i) the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate HERBST’s method of determining an orientation difference to a threshold between a determined and reference orientation in using images to determine the orientation of objects in images and (ii) the benefits of such a combination would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, the content of claim 13 is similar to the content of claim 6, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the content of claim 20 is similar to the content of claim 6, therefore it is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shi et al. (US 20200074681 A1) teaches location relation between vehicle point cloud and RSD point cloud to determine position
Watkins et al. (US 20260030987 A1) teaches a warning system determining position of car and responder vehicle on side of road and relative distances between them
Berg (US 10332395 B1) teaches determining deviation between determined and known position of roadside device. Position is determined using GPS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANO A DARDANO whose telephone number is (703)756-4543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:00.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/STEFANO ANTHONY DARDANO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights