Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Patent Application filed on 1/22/24. It is noted that Applicant has filed a certified copy of the applications.
DETAILED ACTION
PATH TO ALLOWANCE
Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant telephone Examiner Adams (571-270-3688) prior to filing a response to the instant office action to discuss claim amendments and clarifications as well as cure deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. section 112(b) in a scheduled interview to assist with placing the application in a Condition for Allowance.
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 pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5-6 each recite “with a restriction on a range of the recognized road marking to a range before a reference point taking into consideration a switching point” whereby it is unclear what is included in the limitation ‘before’, i.e. ‘a reference point’ or ‘a switching point’ or both. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-3 each recite ‘processer releases the restriction’ whereby it is unclear from the specification and claims what ‘restriction’ is released as the ‘restriction on the range of the recognized road markings’ of Claim 1 appears to be inherent and not alterable. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites twice ‘in a case where’ such that the claim construction conditional outcomes are difficult to follow. Examiner respectfully suggests Applicant rearrange the language of Claim 4 to more clearly recite the two different cases with the respective outcomes.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMURA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022-0388533) in view of KLEINSCHMIDT et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0339471).
As per Claim 1 TAMURA discloses A determination device comprising (Figs. 1-7 determine matching of lines – road division [Abstract]): a storage medium that stores computer-readable instructions (Figs. 1-2 [0043]); and a processor connected to the storage medium, wherein the processor executes the computer-readable instructions to (Figs. 1-2 recognizer 130 [0043-0044])
recognize a road marking present in a moving direction of a vehicle (Figs. 1-7 recognizer 130 [0038-0039] lines solid and broken in direction of travel of Vehicle M [0046-0047]), and determine whether the recognized road marking matches a map road marking based on map information stored in a storage unit (Figs. 1-7 compare the patterns of lines recognized to map information 54, 62 stored within the computer system of host vehicle [0038-0039] [0044] [0046-0047]); the processor determines whether the recognized road marking matches the map road marking (Figs. 1-7 recognizer 130 [0038-0039] [0044] [0046-0047])
TAMURA does not disclose but KLEINSCHMIDT discloses when the vehicle approaches a curved road (Figs. 2-3 determine vehicle is approaching a bend [Abstract]), with a restriction on a range of the recognized road marking to a range before a reference point taking into consideration a switching point to the curved road (Figs. 2-3 [Abstract] reference point = set point before the bend/turn with restriction on visible range of line markings as bend approaches considerations [0015] [0044] [0047-0048])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include when the vehicle approaches a curved road, with a restriction on a range of the recognized road marking to a range before a reference point taking into consideration a switching point to the curved road as taught by KLEINSCHMIDT into the system of TAMURA because of the benefit taught by KLEINSCHMIDT to incorporate curved-road limited-ability processing into intelligent driver-assistance systems such that compensation/correction may be applied to inherent risks in the limited visibility whereby TAMURA is directed towards an intelligent driver-assistance system and would directly benefit from the incorporation of curved-road limited-ability processing to further enhance the system by providing a means to assist with obstacle avoidance.
As per Claim 2 TAMURA discloses The determination device according to claim 1, wherein,
in a case where the vehicle passes through the reference point (Figs. 1-7 passes through a number of first point in the planned trajectory [0060, 0075]), determines whether the recognized road marking matches the map road marking for the range of the recognized road marking (Figs. 1-7 compare the patterns of lines recognized to map information 54, 62 [0038-0039] [0044] [0046-0047])
TAMURA does not disclose but KLEINSCHMIDT discloses the processor releases the restriction (Figs. 1-3 visual range capability restored – restrictions no longer apply [0022] [0044]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 2)
As per Claim 3 TAMURA discloses The determination device according to claim 1,
wherein, in a case where the vehicle passes through a prescribed position before the reference point (Figs. 1-7 passes through a future/predicted trajectory point [0048] before passing actual reference points of plan [0060-0061] [0075]), determines whether the recognized road marking matches the map road marking for the range of the recognized road marking (See said analysis for Claim 2)
TAMURA does not disclose but KLEINSCHMIDT discloses the processor releases the restriction (See said analysis for Claim 2)
As per Claim 5 TAMURA discloses A determination method comprising (Figs. 1-2 [Abstract]):
by a computer mounted in a vehicle (Figs. 1-2 integrated into onboard vehicle system 1 [0029-0030] [0034]), recognizing a road marking present in a moving direction of the vehicle (See said analysis for Claim 1); determining whether the recognized road marking matches a map road marking based on map information stored in a storage unit (See said analysis for Claim 1); determining whether the recognized road marking matches the map road marking (See said analysis for Claim 1)
TAMURA does not disclose but KLEINSCHMIDT discloses when the vehicle approaches a curved road, with a restriction on a range of the recognized road marking to a range before a reference point taking into consideration a switching point to the curved road (See said analysis for Claim 1)
As per Claim 6 TAMURA discloses A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for ([0043]) causing a computer mounted in a vehicle to (See said analysis for Claim 5): recognize a road marking present in a moving direction of the vehicle (See said analysis for Claim 1); determine whether the recognized road marking matches a map road marking based on map information stored in a storage unit (See said analysis for Claim 1); determine whether the recognized road marking matches the map road marking (See said analysis for Claim 1),
TAMURA does not disclose but KLEINSCHMIDT discloses when the vehicle approaches a curved road, with a restriction on a range of the recognized road marking to a range before a reference point taking into consideration a switching point to the curved road (See said analysis for Claim 1)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C section 112(b).
Claim 4 is/are allowed, but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C section 112(b). The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor sets the reference point as the switching point in a case where the vehicle is a prescribed distance away from the switching point, and sets the reference point as a point that is positioned in the moving direction with respect to the switching point and obtained from a vehicle speed of the vehicle, in a case where the vehicle is not the prescribed distance away from the switching point" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record TAMURA et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022-0388533) for Claim 4 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. TAMURA only discloses a determination method comprising by a computer mounted in a vehicle to recognize a road marking present in a moving direction of the vehicle and determine whether the recognized road marking matches a map road marking based on map information stored in a storage unit.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30-5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481