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 .
Introduction
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 2, 2025 has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masakazu (JP 2007323578).
Regarding claim 1, Masakazu discloses a lane division line detection device comprising:
a processor configured to:
determine which to use for detecting a lane division line out of a camera for capturing surroundings of a vehicle and a temperature sensor for detecting a temperature distribution around the vehicle, the camera and the temperature sensor being mounted on the vehicle, based on a visibility index indicating how a road surface is viewed by the camera (Masakazu, [0018] regarding using a visible image from a visible image imaging unit (i.e., camera) to identify a lane mark and using an infrared image from an infrared imaging unit (i.e., temperature sensor) to determine an edge when the lane mark cannot be detected in the visible image (i.e., when visibility is good, use the visible image and when visibility is bad, use the infrared image)),
detect the lane division line based on an image representing the surroundings of the vehicle generated by the camera when the camera is used (Masakazu, [0047] regarding detecting a lane mark in the visible image), and
detect the lane division line based on a temperature distribution signal representing the temperature distribution around the vehicle generated by the temperature sensor when the temperature sensor is used (Masakazu, [0052] regarding detecting an edge point in the infrared image).
Regarding claim 2, Masakazu discloses the lane division line detection device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor determines that the temperature sensor is used for detecting the lane division line when the visibility index indicates a state in which the lane division line cannot be visually recognized in the image, and determines that the camera is used for detecting the lane division line when the visibility index indicates a state in which the lane division line can be visually recognized in the image (Masakazu, [0018] regarding using a visible image from a visible image imaging unit (i.e., camera) to identify a lane mark and using an infrared image from an infrared imaging unit (i.e., temperature sensor) to determine an edge when the lane mark cannot be detected in the visible image (i.e., when visibility is good, use the visible image and when visibility is bad, use the infrared image)).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masakazu in view of Fujii (US 2005/0099527).
Regarding claim 3, Masakazu discloses the lane division line detection device as claimed in claim 1 and using an infrared image from an infrared imaging unit (i.e., temperature sensor) to determine an edge when the lane mark cannot be detected in the visible image ([0018]).
Masakazu does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor refers to an index indicating whether or not the road surface is wet as the visibility index, and when the visibility index indicates that the road surface is wet, the processor determines that the temperature sensor is used for detecting the lane division line.
Fujii teaches that lane boundary lines are difficult to identify in a video camera when the road surface is wet ([0007]).
Masakazu and Fujii are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masakazu to incorporate using an infrared image instead of a visible image when the road is wet, because it is difficult to identify lane line when the road is wet, as disclosed by Fujii, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to detect the lane lines when the road is both dry and wet.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masakazu in view of Fujii, and further in view of Zhao (US 2017/0161570).
Regarding claim 4, Masakazu in view of Fujii teaches the lane division line detection device as claimed in claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor calculates the visibility index by inputting the image to a classifier learned in advance so as to determine whether or not the road surface is wet.
Zhao teaches wherein the processor calculates the visibility index by inputting the image to a classifier learned in advance so as to determine whether or not the road surface is wet (Zhao, [0033] regarding a classifier determining whether a current surface in the image belongs to a wet or dry surface & [0003] regarding the classifier being a trained database).
Masakazu and Zhao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masakazu, as modified, to incorporate determining the road is wet using a classifier, as disclosed by Zhao, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to determine if the road is wet with increased accuracy.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masakazu in view of Tu (CN 110562251).
Regarding claim 5, Masakazu discloses the lane division line detection device as claimed in claim 1, and using an infrared image from an infrared imaging unit (i.e., temperature sensor) to determine an edge when the lane mark cannot be detected in the visible image ([0018]).
Masakazu does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor calculates a ratio of the number of images in which the detection of the lane division line fails to the number of the plurality of images generated by the camera within a latest predetermined period as the visibility index, and determines that the temperature sensor is used for detecting the lane division line when the ratio is equal to or larger than a predetermined ratio.
Tu teaches determining that the number of consecutive lane line extraction failures form an image exceeds a preset number indicating that the lane lines have been unclear for a long time ([0064] & [0099]).
Masakazu and Tu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Masakazu to incorporate determining there is a lane line detection failure after a period of time, as disclosed by Tu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the camera is not able to determine the lane lines.
Masakazu, as modified, teaches wherein the processor calculates a ratio of the number of images in which the detection of the lane division line fails to the number of the plurality of images generated by the camera within a latest predetermined period as the visibility index, and determines that the temperature sensor is used for detecting the lane division line when the ratio is equal to or larger than a predetermined ratio (After not being able to determine the lane lines in the images after a period of time, determine that the visibility is bad and changing to use the infrared sensor instead (Masakazu & Tu)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights