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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Canceled:
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on has been entered.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant presents the following arguments:
Claims 6 and 8 recite a vehicle control device comprising (1) an ambient sensor configured to detect three-dimensional objects and lane markings and to acquire ambient information, and (2) a control unit configured to execute offset control and offset-suppression control based on the ambient information.
Further, amended claim 6 recites "...in the first condition, in a case where a specific condition is satisfied where a first offset target candidate is predicted, based on the ambient information, to be present in the second adjacent lane,..." Also, amended claim 8 recites "...wherein, in a first condition where a first offset target candidate that is a three-dimensional object predicted, based on the ambient information, to satisfy the offset condition within a preset prediction time window is detected in a first adjacent lane adjacent to a first lateral side of a travel lane in which the host vehicle is traveling, and a specific condition is satisfied, the control unit is configured to reduce the offset distance by executing the offset suppression control or not to execute the offset control even if the offset condition is predicted to be satisfied for the first offset target candidate."
The specification discloses an ambient sensor and a control unit, and their cooperative relationship. In particular, paragraphs [0019]-[0023] describe that the ambient sensor includes camera sensor 20, radar sensor 21, and optionally a camera sensor capable of imaging scenery to the side and rear of the host vehicle. These sensors detect the surroundings of the vehicle and provide ambient information to the control unit (ECU 10).
The camera sensor 20 captures image data of lane markings and surrounding three-dimensional objects, and calculates the relative position and speed of those objects with respect to the host vehicle. It also detects blinker status of other vehicles (paragraph [0019]). The radar sensor 21 emits millimeter-wave signals and receives reflections to determine the presence and relative position of three-dimensional objects in front and to the sides of the vehicle (paragraph [0022]). The ECU 10 receives this sensor data as ambient information and uses it to execute control logic (paragraph [0023]).
Paragraphs [0026]-[0033] , inter alia, further explain that the ECU 10 executes lane keeping assist control and offset control based on the ambient information (defined in paragraph [0023] as the combination of camera and radar data). The ECU evaluates whether a three- dimensional object satisfies the offset condition, and also predicts whether an object is likely to satisfy the offset condition in the near future - i.e., within a preset prediction time window. For instance, when both a first offset target candidate in one adjacent lane and another object or predicted offset target candidate in the opposite adjacent lane exist simultaneously, the ECU determines whether the "specific condition" is satisfied and executes offset-suppression control (paragraphs [0033]-[0040]). These passages disclose that the ECU uses ambient information from the sensors, i.e., camera sensor 20 and radar sensor 21, to predict whether another object is likely to satisfy the offset condition within a preset prediction time window. The "preset prediction time window" corresponds to the temporal horizon within which the ECU anticipates that the offset condition will be met, based on the relative motion and behavior of surrounding objects.
Accordingly, the claimed prediction is not a black box. It is based on disclosed sensor inputs and spatial reasoning, including, for example, vehicle trajectory, blinker status, and lane geometry. The specification shows that the control unit uses ambient information to anticipate the presence and behavior of three-dimensional objects in adjacent lanes. This prediction method is described in sufficient detail to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although applicant contends "the claimed prediction is not a black box. It is based on disclosed sensor inputs and spatial reasoning, including, for example, vehicle trajectory, blinker status, and lane geometry” in regards to claim limitation: , this is insufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Applicant's arguments amount to an assertion that it would be common practice for a person skilled in the art to predict the presence of a first offset target candidate in an adjacent lane within a preset prediction time window based on ambient information provided by a camera sensor, a radar sensor, LIDAR, or a combination thereof.
Applicant asserts that a person skilled in the art understands how to determine a speed reduction to be performed before reaching the road crest based on at least a gradient of a downhill slope following the road crest.
Although a person skilled in the art may arguably have familiarity with a camera sensor, a radar sensor, and a LIDAR, such a person would not understand that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Utilizing these sensors for the purpose of predicting the presence of a first target offset candidate in an adjacent land within a preset time window on the basis of the sensed information would require at least tuning for multiple specific sensor configurations and applications. Absent knowledge of how to arrive at a predication based on the ambient information gleaned from the sensors, a person skilled in the art would be faced with a vast amount of inputs, algorithms, model training, and data sets that would confound the process of implementing Applicant's actual invention.
Moreover, Applicant does not direct Examiner to any language, steps or flow charts in the disclosure to show particular hardware or an algorithm, such that a skilled artisan would understand how to . There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs and output a value. As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I.)
Absent from the Specification is any discussion as to the particular steps, i.e., algorithm, necessary to perform the claimed functions. As such, the rejection is maintained as the instant Specification does not disclose sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to . Stated differently, the steps, procedure or algorithm taken to perform the claimed functions are not described in sufficient detail in the instant Specification to demonstrate that the inventor was in possession of that knowledge.
Therefore, the rejections, as updated infra, in response to the claim amendments have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how a specific condition is satisfied where a first offset target candidate is predicted to be present in the second adjacent lane. There is no written content as to how or what specific algorithms are performed (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example)
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
For example, the ECU 10 may be configured to set the offset control to the suppression mode instead of setting the offset control to the stop mode when a specific condition is satisfied. In the suppression mode, the ECU 10 may be configured to perform offset suppression control, which is offset control with a reduced offset distance dos. In this case, the offset stop areas A1 and A2 can be read as “offset suppression areas A3 and A4” respectively.
(See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶)
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain unspecified inputs and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I). In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm as to how this value is generated raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how a prediction that a three-dimensional object will satisfy the offset condition within a preset prediction time window is made. There is no written content as to how or what specific algorithms are performed (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example)
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
For example, the ECU 10 may be configured to set the offset control to the suppression mode instead of setting the offset control to the stop mode when a specific condition is satisfied. In the suppression mode, the ECU 10 may be configured to perform offset suppression control, which is offset control with a reduced offset distance dos. In this case, the offset stop areas A1 and A2 can be read as “offset suppression areas A3 and A4” respectively.
(See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶)
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain unspecified inputs and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I). In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm as to how this value is generated raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim(s) ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement and are rejected for depending therefrom.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747