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:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Rejections have been withdrawn in response to claim cancellation
Regarding Claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant presents the following arguments:
with regard to claim 6, the Office Action indicates that the specification fails to describe "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 (emphasis original)" (see, e.g., the Office Action at page 8, lines 4-8).
By this response, claim 6 is amended to recite
...wherein the control unit is further configured to determine that the specific
condition is satisfied based on at least one of:
(i) detection of a different vehicle on the second lateral side based on the
ambient information, and a current position or a predicted position of the different
vehicle is located within a predetermined area located on the second lateral side;
and
(ii) detection of a three-dimensional object that indicates lane restrictions
in the second adjacent lane based on the ambient information, or the road traffic
information indicates that there is a lane restriction in the second adjacent lane
within a predetermined distance range ahead in a travel direction of the host
vehicle
As amended, claim 6 expressly recites the processes and conditions under which the control unit for determines that the specific condition is satisfied. The Applicant submits that examples of these conditions are described in the specification as originally filed, for example, at paragraphs [0040]-[0045] and [0047]-[0059]. Accordingly, the Applicant submits that the subject matter of amended claim 6 recites the processes/conditions for determining that the specific condition is satisfied and, hence, is fully compliant with the written description requirement of § 112(a).
In view of the amendments to claims 6 and 8, the Applicant submits that the predictions as recited in the amended claims are not mere black boxes. Rather, amended claims 6 and 8 expressly recite the sensor inputs and spatial relationships between the host vehicle and surrounding objects that give rise to the predictions by the recited control unit. Thus, in view of the amendments to claims 6 and 8 and for at least the reasons discussed above, the Applicant submits that the subject matter of the amended claims is fully compliant with the written description requirements of § 112(a).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although applicant contends " in regards to amended 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 implement a vehicle control device utilizing ambient information and road traffic information and output a
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Although a person skilled in the art may arguably have familiarity with some parameters associated with vehicle control on the basis of ambient information and road traffic information, such a person would not understand that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Absent knowledge of how models are developed, utilized, or how factors are employed with respect to , to achieve an , 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 meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved 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 performing the claimed limitation and achieve the result thereof. 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 rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues:
As for claim 8, the Office Action indicates that the specification does not provide
adequate written description to support the language "in a first condition where a first offset target candidate that is a three-dimensional object predicted, based on the ambient condition 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" (see, e.g., the Office Action at page 10, lines 7-13).
By this response, claim 8 is amended to recite
wherein, in a first condition where a first offset target candidate that is a
three-dimensional object for which the offset condition is predicted to be satisfied by the host vehicle entering an overtaking section of the three-dimensional object 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
upon a specific condition being 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
As amended, claim 8 expressly indicates that the processes and conditions under which the control unit predicts that the three-dimensional object will satisfy the offset condition within a preset prediction time window. Specifically, the control unit predicts that the three-dimensional object will satisfy the offset condition within a preset prediction time window when "the host vehicle enter[s] an overtaking section of the three-dimensional object 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".
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although applicant contends in regards to amended 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 implement a vehicle control device utilizing satisfaction of a specific condition; and prediction of first offset target candidate offset condition satisfaction by the host vehicle entering an overtaking section of the three-dimensional object within a preset prediction time window detected in a first adjacent lane adjacent to a first lateral side of a travel lane in which the host vehicle is traveling and output a .
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Although a person skilled in the art may arguably have familiarity with some parameters associated with vehicle control on the basis of conditions being satisfied and prediction of candidate targets, such a person would not understand that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Absent knowledge of how models are developed, utilized, or how factors are employed with respect to , to achieve an , 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 meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved 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 performing the claimed limitation and achieve the result thereof. 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 rejection has been maintained.
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claims , Applicant's arguments are based only upon dependencies from claims . Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
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) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim 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, the first offset target candidate being a three-dimensional object predicted to satisfy the predetermined offset condition within a preset prediction time window, the control unit is further configured to stop the offset control or reduce the offset distance by executing the offset suppression control wherein the control unit is further configured to determine that the specific condition is satisfied based on at least one of:
(i) detection of a different vehicle on the second lateral side based on the ambient information, and a current position or a predicted position of the different vehicle is located within a predetermined area located on the second lateral side; and
(ii) detection of a three-dimensional object that indicates lane restrictions in the second adjacent lane based on the ambient information, or the road traffic information indicates that there is a lane restriction in the second adjacent lane within a predetermined distance range ahead in a travel direction of the host vehicle.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. 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:
Ambient Information:
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶0007-0009, 0031
[0007]
An aspect of the present disclosure provides a vehicle control device (hereinafter referred to as a “present disclosure device”) including an ambient sensor capable of detecting three-dimensional objects existing around a host vehicle and lane markings defining lanes and acquiring information about the detected three-dimensional objects and lane markings as ambient information, and a control unit configured to execute offset control for assisting a steering operation by a driver of the host vehicle such that a lateral position of the host vehicle is shifted in a direction away from a three-dimensional object existing in an adjacent lane by a predetermined offset distance when a predetermined offset condition is met for the three-dimensional object, and to stop the offset control or execute offset suppression control, as offset control in which the offset distance is reduced, in a first case in which the offset control is executed for a three-dimensional object existing in a first adjacent lane that is adjacent on a first direction side to a travel lane in which the host vehicle is traveling and when the offset condition is met for a three-dimensional object existing in a second adjacent lane that is adjacent on a second direction side to the travel lane, the second direction side being an opposite side of the first direction side. The control unit is configured to stop the offset control or execute the offset suppression control in the first case and when a specific condition is met, the specific condition being met when it is predicted based on the ambient information that a second offset target candidate exists in the second adjacent lane, the second offset target candidate being a three-dimensional object that is highly likely to meet the offset condition in a near future, and not to execute the offset control or to execute the offset suppression control, even if the offset condition is met for a first offset target candidate in a near future, in a second case in which the first offset target candidate is detected in the first adjacent lane based on the ambient information and when the specific condition is met, the first offset target candidate being a three-dimensional object that is highly likely to meet the offset condition.
[0008]
In the present disclosure device, the offset control is stopped or the offset suppression control is executed in the first case (when the offset control is executed for a three-dimensional object in the first adjacent lane) and when a specific condition (a condition that is met when it is predicted based on the ambient information that a second offset target candidate exists in the second adjacent lane, the second offset target candidate being a three-dimensional object that is highly likely to meet the offset condition in the near future) is met. Therefore, the offset control is stopped or the offset suppression control is executed, even if a three-dimensional object that meets the offset condition is not detected in the second adjacent lane at the present. In addition, the offset control is not executed or the offset suppression control is executed, even if the offset condition is met for a first offset target candidate in the near future, in a second case (when the first offset target candidate is detected in the first adjacent lane, the first offset target candidate being a three-dimensional object that is highly likely to meet the offset condition) and when the specific condition is met. Therefore, the offset control is not executed or the offset suppression control is executed, even if a three-dimensional object that meets the offset condition is not detected in the second adjacent lane, when the offset condition is met for the first offset target candidate in the near future. According to these configurations, it is possible to suppress in advance the occurrence of an event in which the host vehicle excessively approaches the second offset target candidate. Thus, it is possible to appropriately reduce the possibility of an increase in the driver's sense of anxiety and the sense of oppressiveness due to the offset control.
[0009]
In the aspect of the present disclosure, the control unit is configured to determine that the specific condition is met in the first case and when a first different vehicle is detected on the second direction side with respect to the travel lane based on the ambient information and a present position of the first different vehicle is positioned in a predetermined first specific area provided on the second direction side with respect to the travel lane based on a position of the host vehicle, and determine that the specific condition is met in the second case and when a second different vehicle is detected based on the ambient information in a second adjacent adjacent lane that is adjacent on the second direction side to the second adjacent lane, the second different vehicle being likely to be attempting to execute a lane change to the second adjacent lane, and a predicted position of the second different vehicle at a time when it is assumed that the offset condition is met for the first offset target candidate is positioned in a predetermined second specific area provided on the second direction side with respect to the travel lane based on the position of the host vehicle.
[0031]
The camera sensor 20 and the radar sensor 21 are examples of “ambient sensors”. However, in addition to the camera sensor 20, the apparatus of this embodiment may be provided with a camera sensor capable of imaging the scenery to the side and rear of the own vehicle as an ambient sensor. Then, three-dimensional objects and lane markings existing around the own vehicle may be detected based on image data captured by these camera sensors. Similarly, in addition to the radar sensor 21, the apparatus of this embodiment may include a radar sensor capable of detecting a three-dimensional object existing behind the own vehicle as an ambient sensor. Lidar may be employed as an ambient sensor instead of or in addition to the radar sensor 21. Below, the camera information and the radar information are collectively referred to as “front side information”. The front side information corresponds to an example of “surrounding information”.
Three Dimensional Object Indicating Lane Restrictions:
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶0011-0012, 0041
[0011] In the aspect of the present disclosure, the control unit is configured to determine that the specific condition is met in the first case and the second case and when a three-dimensional object that indicates lane restriction is detected in the second adjacent lane based on the ambient information.
[0012] In general, when there is a three-dimensional object (e.g., a rear guard vehicle, a pylon, or a signboard) that indicates lane restriction in the second adjacent lane, a plurality of restriction materials (e.g. pylons) as three-dimensional objects indicating that the second adjacent lane is restricted is disposed in front of the three-dimensional object. Since these restriction materials are disposed at an end portion of the second adjacent lane on the first direction side, the restriction materials can be second offset target candidates. Thus, according to the above configuration, it is possible to appropriately determine whether the second offset target candidate can be detected in the first and second cases, improving the reliability of the specific condition.
Current or Predicted Position:
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶0009, 0048, 0053-0054, 0074
[0009]
In the aspect of the present disclosure, the control unit is configured to determine that the specific condition is met in the first case and when a first different vehicle is detected on the second direction side with respect to the travel lane based on the ambient information and a present position of the first different vehicle is positioned in a predetermined first specific area provided on the second direction side with respect to the travel lane based on a position of the host vehicle, and determine that the specific condition is met in the second case and when a second different vehicle is detected based on the ambient information in a second adjacent adjacent lane that is adjacent on the second direction side to the second adjacent lane, the second different vehicle being likely to be attempting to execute a lane change to the second adjacent lane, and a predicted position of the second different vehicle at a time when it is assumed that the offset condition is met for the first offset target candidate is positioned in a predetermined second specific area provided on the second direction side with respect to the travel lane based on the position of the host vehicle.
[0048]
In the example of FIG. 3 , conditions 1, 2, and 5 are satisfied for the other vehicle V1 at the present time (time t=t0). Therefore, the other vehicle V1 is the first offset target candidate. When the first offset target candidate is detected in this way, the ECU 10 determines that the specific condition is satisfied when all of the following conditions 6 to 8 are satisfied, and determines that the specific condition is not satisfied when at least one of the conditions 6 to 8 is not satisfied. (Condition 6) Another vehicle is detected in lane L2 b (described later). (Condition 7) There is a possibility that the other vehicle is about to change lanes to lane L2 a. (Condition 8) Assuming that the offset condition is satisfied for the first offset target candidate, the predicted position of the other vehicle is located within a predetermined offset stop area A1 (described later).
[0053]
Condition 8 is satisfied when the predicted position of the other vehicle when it is assumed that the own vehicle V has entered the overtaking section S of the first offset target candidate (that is, the offset condition is satisfied due to the establishment of condition 3) is located within the offset stop area A1. As shown in FIG. 3 , the offset stop area A1 is provided on the direction D2 side with respect to the lane L0 based on the position of the own vehicle V. The area A1 has a rectangular shape and is composed of a pair of short sides Ea extending in the lane width direction and a pair of long sides Eb extending in the extending direction of the lane L2 a. The length La of the short side Ea is slightly shorter than the lane width. The length Lb of the long side Eb is longer than the overtaking section S. The area A1 is provided at a position separated from the own vehicle V by a distance d in the direction D2. The rear end of the area A1 coincides with the rear end of the own vehicle V. The long side Eb on the direction D1 side of the area A1 is located on the direction D1 side of the center line in the lane width direction of the lane L2 a. The long side Eb on the direction D2 side of the area A1 is positioned slightly on the direction D2 side of the partition line 43. However, the size and shape of the area A1 and the positional relationship with the own vehicle V are not limited thereto. Note that when the direction D1 and the direction D2 correspond to the right direction and the left direction, respectively, the area A1 can be provided at a symmetrical position with respect to the front-rear axis B of the own vehicle V. Further, “the predicted position (or the current position described later) of the other vehicle is located within the offset stop area A1 (or A2 described later)” means that at least part of the other vehicle is located within the area A1 (or A2).
[0054]
In the example of FIG. 3, the own vehicle V is entering the overtaking section S at time t=t1. When the other vehicle V2 is located at the position indicated by the solid line at the time t=t1, the predicted position of the other vehicle V2 is located within the area A1, so the condition 8 is satisfied. When conditions 6 to 8 are all satisfied, the ECU 10 predicts that the other vehicle V2 can become a second offset target candidate by changing lanes from lane L2 b to lane L2 a. That is, the ECU 10 determines that the specific condition is satisfied. On the other hand, when the other vehicle V2 is located at the position indicated by the dashed line at the time t=t1, the predicted position of the other vehicle V2 is not located within the area A1, so the condition 8 is not satisfied. In this case, the ECU 10 predicts that although the other vehicle V2 will change lanes from the lane L2 b to the lane L2 a, the other vehicle V2 is located relatively far away and cannot be a candidate for the second offset. That is, the ECU 10 determines that the specific condition is not satisfied. The other vehicle V2 and the area A1 correspond to examples of the “second other vehicle” and the “second specific area”, respectively.
[0074]
Next, specific operations of the ECU 10 will be described. The CPU of the ECU 10 concurrently executes the routines shown in the flowchart of FIGS. 7 and 8 during the period in which the LTA is being executed. Each routine will be described in order below. At a predetermined timing, the CPU advances the process from step 700 to step 705 and determines whether offset control is being executed in the direction D2. If offset control is not being executed (S705: No), the CPU determines in step 710 whether or not the first offset target candidate has been detected. If the first offset target candidate has not been detected (S710: No), the CPU sets the offset control to the executable mode in step 715, and once terminates this routine in step 795. On the other hand, if the first offset target candidate is detected (S710: Yes), the CPU determines in step 720 whether or not the other vehicle V2 is detected on lane L2 b. If the other vehicle V2 is detected (S720: Yes), the CPU determines that condition 6 is satisfied, and determines in step 725 whether there is a possibility that the other vehicle V2 is about to change lanes to the lane L2 a. If there is a possibility that the lane is about to be changed (S725: Yes), the CPU determines that condition 7 is satisfied, and in step 730, the position of the other vehicle V2 is predicted (calculated) when entering the overtaking section S (that is, when the offset condition for the first offset target candidate is established). Subsequently, at step 735, the CPU determines whether or not the predicted position of the other vehicle V2 is located within the offset stop area A1. When the predicted position is located within the area A1 (S735: Yes), the CPU determines that the condition 8 is satisfied, that is, the specific condition is satisfied. In this case, the CPU sets the offset control to stop mode at step 740. As a result, even if the offset condition is satisfied for the first offset candidate after that, the offset control is not executed. The CPU then proceeds to step 795.
Road Traffic Information:
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶0013, 0032, 0070-0071, 0077, 0080
[0013]
In the aspect of the present disclosure, the vehicle control device may further include a receiver capable of receiving road traffic information including information about lane restriction as the ambient information. The control unit is configured to determine that the specific condition is met in the first case and the second case and when it is determined based on the road traffic information that lane restriction is performed in the second adjacent lane in a predetermined distance range ahead in a travel direction of the host vehicle.
[0032]
The receiver 22 is a device capable of receiving road traffic information by the Vehicle Information and Communication System (VICS (registered trademark)). Road traffic information includes information on lane restrictions due to construction work, accidents, disasters, weather conditions, or the like. Here, lane regulation means that on a road with two or more lanes on one side, one or more lanes are left as lanes in which general vehicles can travel, and traffic in other lanes is regulated using regulation materials. In this embodiment, receiver 22 includes an FM multiple antenna, a radio beacon receiver, and an optical beacon antenna. An FM multiplex antenna is a receiver that receives road traffic information from an FM broadcasting station. A radio wave beacon receiver is a receiver that receives road traffic information ahead in the traveling direction from a radio wave beacon installed on a highway. The optical beacon antenna is a receiver that receives surrounding road traffic information from optical beacons installed on general roads. Note that the receiver 22 is not limited to the configuration including all of the FM multiplex antenna, the radio beacon receiver, and the optical beacon antenna, and may be configured to include one or two of these.
[0070]
Whether or not conditions 11 to 13 are satisfied can be determined based on the front and side information. On the other hand, whether or not condition 14 is satisfied can be determined based on road traffic information output from receiver 22. In general, a tail guard vehicle, a plurality of pylons, and a signboard are arranged to notify that the lane ahead is closed. Lane regulation is performed by arranging a plurality of regulating members at the end portion in the lane width direction (the end portion on the traveling lane side) of the lane to be regulated. Therefore, when at least one of the conditions 11 to 14 is satisfied, there is a high possibility that the restricting material is arranged in front. Then, there is a high possibility that the regulated material will become a candidate for the second offset. Therefore, when the first offset target candidate is detected and at least one of the conditions 11 to 14 is satisfied, the ECU 10 predicts that the regulating material that can be the second offset target candidate is arranged ahead. That is, the ECU 10 determines that the specific condition is satisfied.
[0071]
In the example of FIG. 5 , condition 11 is established for case 1 because the rear guard vehicle Vc is detected on lane L2 a. Regarding case 2, since a plurality of pylons 50 arranged to cross the lane L2 a are detected on the lane L2 a, condition 12 is established. For case 3, condition 13 is satisfied because construction signboard Sb is detected in lane L2 a. Regarding Case 4, since the receiver 22 receives road traffic information including that lane L2 a is restricted within a predetermined distance range ahead of the own vehicle V in the traveling direction, Condition 14 is satisfied. Therefore, in these cases 1 to 4, the ECU 10 predicts that a regulating material (pylon 50 in the example of FIG. 5 ) that can be a candidate for the second offset is placed ahead, and when the specific condition is satisfied, judge.
[0077]
In parallel with this, at a predetermined timing, the CPU advances the process from step 800 to step 805 and determines whether offset control is being executed in the direction D2. If offset control is not being executed (S805: No), the CPU determines in step 810 whether or not the first offset target candidate has been detected. If the first offset target candidate is not detected (S810: No), the CPU sets the offset control to the executable mode in step 865, and sets the values of the distance flag and the regulated material flag to 0, respectively. Thereafter, the CPU once terminates this routine at step 895. On the other hand, if the first offset target candidate has been detected (S810: Yes), the CPU determines in step 815 whether the value of the distance flag is zero. The initial value of the distance flag is 0. If the value of the distance flag is 0 (S815: Yes), the CPU determines in step 820 whether the value of the regulated material flag is 0. The initial value of the regulated material flag is 0. If the value of the restricted material flag is 0 (S820: Yes), the CPU determines in step 825 whether a three-dimensional object (rear guard vehicle, pylon, signboard) announcing lane restriction is detected on lane L2 a, or determines whether road traffic information including lane restrictions for lane L2 a has been acquired. When the three-dimensional object is detected or the road traffic information is acquired (S825: Yes), the CPU determines that the specific condition is met by at least one of the conditions 11 to 14 being met. Then, at step 830, the value of the distance flag is set to one.
[0080]
On the other hand, when no three-dimensional object announcing lane restrictions is detected on lane L2 a and road traffic information including lane restrictions on lane L2 a is not acquired (S825: No), the CPU determines that the conditions 11 to 14 are not satisfied (that is, the specific condition is not satisfied), the above-described processing is performed at step 865, and the process proceeds to step 895.
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which input(s) are provided and output result as follows:
Inputs:
road traffic information
Outputs:
Prediction of specific condition satisfaction where a first offset target candidate is present in the second adjacent lane;
prediction of a first offset target candidate (a three-dimensional object predicted) to satisfy the predetermined offset condition within a preset prediction time window;
AND
(i) detection of a different vehicle on the second lateral side (based on ambient information) and current position or predicted position of different vehicle located within a predetermined area located on the second lateral side
OR
(ii) detection of a three-dimensional object that indicates lane restrictions in the second adjacent lane (based on ambient information)
OR
(ii) detection of a three-dimensional object that indicates lane restrictions in the second adjacent lane (based on road traffic information indicating that there is a lane restriction in the second adjacent lane within a predetermined distance range ahead in a host vehicle travel direction)
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “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”. 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 with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof 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, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites:
“in a first condition where a first offset target candidate that is a three-dimensional object for which the offset condition is predicted to be satisfied by the host vehicle entering an overtaking section of the three-dimensional object 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 upon a specific condition being 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 does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. 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:
Three Dimensional Object:
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶0011-0012, 0041
[0011] In the aspect of the present disclosure, the control unit is configured to determine that the specific condition is met in the first case and the second case and when a three-dimensional object that indicates lane restriction is detected in the second adjacent lane based on the ambient information.
[0012] In general, when there is a three-dimensional object (e.g., a rear guard vehicle, a pylon, or a signboard) that indicates lane restriction in the second adjacent lane, a plurality of restriction materials (e.g. pylons) as three-dimensional objects indicating that the second adjacent lane is restricted is disposed in front of the three-dimensional object. Since these restriction materials are disposed at an end portion of the second adjacent lane on the first direction side, the restriction materials can be second offset target candidates. Thus, according to the above configuration, it is possible to appropriately determine whether the second offset target candidate can be detected in the first and second cases, improving the reliability of the specific condition.
Overtaking Section:
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶0035, 0041-0042, 0053-0054, 0063, 0074
[0035]
The offset condition is met when all of the following conditions 1 to 3 are met and at least one of the following conditions 4 and 5 is met. (Condition 1) A three-dimensional object is detected on the adjacent lane. (Condition 2) The speed v of the host vehicle is greater than the speed of the three-dimensional object (including zero). (Condition 3) The host vehicle is entering a predetermined overtaking section S of the three-dimensional object. (Condition 4) The three-dimensional object is a large vehicle. (Condition 5) The distance between the three-dimensional object and the lane marking (the lane marking the boundary between the driving lane and the adjacent lane) is less than a predetermined distance threshold.
[0041]
Whether or not Conditions 1 to 5 are satisfied can be determined based on the front and side information. Here, the “three-dimensional object” of condition 1 is typically a moving object such as another vehicle, or a stationary object such as a regulating material or a wall. A regulating member is a three-dimensional object (for example, a pylon) that indicates that the lane is regulated, and is usually arranged in plural at the end of the regulated lane in the lane width direction. Further, as shown in FIG. 2 , the “overtaking section S” of the condition 3 is a section that ranges from “a position a predetermined distance d1 behind the rear end of the three-dimensional object (other vehicle V1 in the example of FIG. 2 )” to “a position ahead by a predetermined distance d2 from the front end of a three-dimensional object”. In other words, the overtaking section S is a section having margins before and after the section where the vehicle overlaps the three-dimensional object in the direction of travel when the vehicle overtakes the three-dimensional object. A relationship of distance d2>distance d1 is established between the distances d1 and d2.
[0042]
Offset conditions and offset control will be specifically described with reference to FIG. 2 . As shown in FIG. 2 , the own vehicle V is traveling on the lane L0 at a speed v, and the other vehicle V1 is traveling on the lane L1 at a speed v1. Velocity v is greater than velocity v1. Lane L0 is a driving lane and is defined by lane markings 40 and 41. Lane L1 is an adjacent lane adjacent to lane L0 on the direction D1 side, and is defined by lane markings 41 and 42. The other vehicle V1 is traveling in the lane L1 in the direction D2, and the distance between the other vehicle V1 and the lane marking 41 is less than the distance threshold. LTA is executed for the own vehicle V. The ECU 10 determines whether or not Conditions 1 to 5 are satisfied based on the front side information. In the example of FIG. 2 , conditions 1, 2, and 5 are satisfied, but condition 3 is not satisfied. After that, when the own vehicle V approaches the other vehicle V1 and the front end of the own vehicle V enters the overtaking section S of the other vehicle V1, the ECU 10 determines that the condition 3 is satisfied. As a result, the ECU 10 determines that the offset condition is satisfied and executes the offset control.
[0043]
Hereinafter, a three-dimensional object on an adjacent lane that satisfies conditions 1 and 2 and at least one of conditions 4 and 5 will be referred to as an “offset target candidate.” In the example of FIG. 2 , the other vehicle V1 is an offset target candidate. When the condition 3 is satisfied for the offset target candidate, the offset condition is satisfied and the offset control is executed. The offset target candidate can also be said to be “a three-dimensional object that is highly likely to satisfy the offset conditions in the near future”. During the execution of the offset control, as indicated by the trajectory T of the own vehicle V, the lateral position of the own vehicle V is shifted in the direction away from the other vehicle V1 by a predetermined offset distance dos (that is, the direction D2). A driver's steering operation is assisted. In other words, the target lateral position of LTA is shifted in direction D2 by offset distance dos. This reduces the anxiety of the driver of the own vehicle V and the oppressive feeling of the other vehicle V1. The direction D1 and the direction D2 correspond to examples of the “first direction” and the “second direction”, respectively. In this embodiment, the direction D1 and the direction D2 correspond to the left direction and the right direction with respect to the traveling direction of the own vehicle, respectively, but may also be configured as the direction D1 and the direction D2 correspond to the right direction and the left direction with respect to the traveling direction of the own vehicle, respectively.
[0044]
The ECU 10 ends the offset control when the rear end of the own vehicle leaves the overtaking section S. When the offset control ends, the ECU 10 sets the target lateral position to the normal target lateral position (the target lateral position before being shifted) and continues the LTA. In other words, resume normal LTA. In the example of FIG. 2 , the ECU 10 ends the offset control when the rear end of the own vehicle V leaves the overtaking section S, and resumes normal LTA.
[0053]
Condition 8 is satisfied when the predicted position of the other vehicle when it is assumed that the own vehicle V has entered the overtaking section S of the first offset target candidate (that is, the offset condition is satisfied due to the establishment of condition 3) is located within the offset stop area A1. As shown in FIG. 3 , the offset stop area A1 is provided on the direction D2 side with respect to the lane L0 based on the position of the own vehicle V. The area A1 has a rectangular shape and is composed of a pair of short sides Ea extending in the lane width direction and a pair of long sides Eb extending in the extending direction of the lane L2 a. The length La of the short side Ea is slightly shorter than the lane width. The length Lb of the long side Eb is longer than the overtaking section S. The area A1 is provided at a position separated from the own vehicle V by a distance d in the direction D2. The rear end of the area A1 coincides with the rear end of the own vehicle V. The long side Eb on the direction D1 side of the area A1 is located on the direction D1 side of the center line in the lane width direction of the lane L2 a. The long side Eb on the direction D2 side of the area A1 is positioned slightly on the direction D2 side of the partition line 43. However, the size and shape of the area A1 and the positional relationship with the own vehicle V are not limited thereto. Note that when the direction D1 and the direction D2 correspond to the right direction and the left direction, respectively, the area A1 can be provided at a symmetrical position with respect to the front-rear axis B of the own vehicle V. Further, “the predicted position (or the current position described later) of the other vehicle is located within the offset stop area A1 (or A2 described later)” means that at least part of the other vehicle is located within the area A1 (or A2).
[0054]
In the example of FIG. 3 , the own vehicle V is entering the overtaking section S at time t=t1. When the other vehicle V2 is located at the position indicated by the solid line at the time t=t1, the predicted position of the other vehicle V2 is located within the area A1, so the condition 8 is satisfied. When conditions 6 to 8 are all satisfied, the ECU 10 predicts that the other vehicle V2 can become a second offset target candidate by changing lanes from lane L2 b to lane L2 a. That is, the ECU 10 determines that the specific condition is satisfied. On the other hand, when the other vehicle V2 is located at the position indicated by the dashed line at the time t=t1, the predicted position of the other vehicle V2 is not located within the area A1, so the condition 8 is not satisfied. In this case, the ECU 10 predicts that although the other vehicle V2 will change lanes from the lane L2 b to the lane L2 a, the other vehicle V2 is located relatively far away and cannot be a candidate for the second offset. That is, the ECU 10 determines that the specific condition is not satisfied. The other vehicle V2 and the area A1 correspond to examples of the “second other vehicle” and the “second specific area”, respectively.
[0063]
Instead of condition 10, the ECU 10 may be configured to predict the trajectory of the other vehicle V3 during the “period from the present time to the time at which the own vehicle exits the overtaking section S”, and to determine whether or not the condition 10A that the other vehicle V3 is located within the area A2 during the period is established.
[0074]
Next, specific operations of the ECU 10 will be described. The CPU of the ECU 10 concurrently executes the routines shown in the flowchart of FIGS. 7 and 8 during the period in which the LTA is being executed. Each routine will be described in order below. At a predetermined timing, the CPU advances the process from step 700 to step 705 and determines whether offset control is being executed in the direction D2. If offset control is not being executed (S705: No), the CPU determines in step 710 whether or not the first offset target candidate has been detected. If the first offset target candidate has not been detected (S710: No), the CPU sets the offset control to the executable mode in step 715, and once terminates this routine in step 795. On the other hand, if the first offset target candidate is detected (S710: Yes), the CPU determines in step 720 whether or not the other vehicle V2 is detected on lane L2 b. If the other vehicle V2 is detected (S720: Yes), the CPU determines that condition 6 is satisfied, and determines in step 725 whether there is a possibility that the other vehicle V2 is about to change lanes to the lane L2 a. If there is a possibility that the lane is about to be changed (S725: Yes), the CPU determines that condition 7 is satisfied, and in step 730, the position of the other vehicle V2 is predicted (calculated) when entering the overtaking section S (that is, when the offset condition for the first offset target candidate is established). Subsequently, at step 735, the CPU determines whether or not the predicted position of the other vehicle V2 is located within the offset stop area A1. When the predicted position is located within the area A1 (S735: Yes), the CPU determines that the condition 8 is satisfied, that is, the specific condition is satisfied. In this case, the CPU sets the offset control to stop mode at step 740. As a result, even if the offset condition is satisfied for the first offset candidate after that, the offset control is not executed. The CPU then proceeds to step 795.
Current or Predicted Position:
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶0009, 0048, 0053-0054, 0074
[0009]
In the aspect of the present disclosure, the control unit is configured to determine that the specific condition is met in the first case and when a first different vehicle is detected on the second direction side with respect to the travel lane based on the ambient information and a present position of the first different vehicle is positioned in a predetermined first specific area provided on the second direction side with respect to the travel lane based on a position of the host vehicle, and determine that the specific condition is met in the second case and when a second different vehicle is detected based on the ambient information in a second adjacent adjacent lane that is adjacent on the second direction side to the second adjacent lane, the second different vehicle being likely to be attempting to execute a lane change to the second adjacent lane, and a predicted position of the second different vehicle at a time when it is assumed that the offset condition is met for the first offset target candidate is positioned in a predetermined second specific area provided on the second direction side with respect to the travel lane based on the position of the host vehicle.
[0048]
In the example of FIG. 3 , conditions 1, 2, and 5 are satisfied for the other vehicle V1 at the present time (time t=t0). Therefore, the other vehicle V1 is the first offset target candidate. When the first offset target candidate is detected in this way, the ECU 10 determines that the specific condition is satisfied when all of the following conditions 6 to 8 are satisfied, and determines that the specific condition is not satisfied when at least one of the conditions 6 to 8 is not satisfied. (Condition 6) Another vehicle is detected in lane L2 b (described later). (Condition 7) There is a possibility that the other vehicle is about to change lanes to lane L2 a. (Condition 8) Assuming that the offset condition is satisfied for the first offset target candidate, the predicted position of the other vehicle is located within a predetermined offset stop area A1 (described later).
[0053]
Condition 8 is satisfied when the predicted position of the other vehicle when it is assumed that the own vehicle V has entered the overtaking section S of the first offset target candidate (that is, the offset condition is satisfied due to the establishment of condition 3) is located within the offset stop area A1. As shown in FIG. 3 , the offset stop area A1 is provided on the direction D2 side with respect to the lane L0 based on the position of the own vehicle V. The area A1 has a rectangular shape and is composed of a pair of short sides Ea extending in the lane width direction and a pair of long sides Eb extending in the extending direction of the lane L2 a. The length La of the short side Ea is slightly shorter than the lane width. The length Lb of the long side Eb is longer than the overtaking section S. The area A1 is provided at a position separated from the own vehicle V by a distance d in the direction D2. The rear end of the area A1 coincides with the rear end of the own vehicle V. The long side Eb on the direction D1 side of the area A1 is located on the direction D1 side of the center line in the lane width direction of the lane L2 a. The long side Eb on the direction D2 side of the area A1 is positioned slightly on the direction D2 side of the partition line 43. However, the size and shape of the area A1 and the positional relationship with the own vehicle V are not limited thereto. Note that when the direction D1 and the direction D2 correspond to the right direction and the left direction, respectively, the area A1 can be provided at a symmetrical position with respect to the front-rear axis B of the own vehicle V. Further, “the predicted position (or the current position described later) of the other vehicle is located within the offset stop area A1 (or A2 described later)” means that at least part of the other vehicle is located within the area A1 (or A2).
[0054]
In the example of FIG. 3 , the own vehicle V is entering the overtaking section S at time t=t1. When the other vehicle V2 is located at the position indicated by the solid line at the time t=t1, the predicted position of the other vehicle V2 is located within the area A1, so the condition 8 is satisfied. When conditions 6 to 8 are all satisfied, the ECU 10 predicts that the other vehicle V2 can become a second offset target candidate by changing lanes from lane L2 b to lane L2 a. That is, the ECU 10 determines that the specific condition is satisfied. On the other hand, when the other vehicle V2 is located at the position indicated by the dashed line at the time t=t1, the predicted position of the other vehicle V2 is not located within the area A1, so the condition 8 is not satisfied. In this case, the ECU 10 predicts that although the other vehicle V2 will change lanes from the lane L2 b to the lane L2 a, the other vehicle V2 is located relatively far away and cannot be a candidate for the second offset. That is, the ECU 10 determines that the specific condition is not satisfied. The other vehicle V2 and the area A1 correspond to examples of the “second other vehicle” and the “second specific area”, respectively.
[0074]
Next, specific operations of the ECU 10 will be described. The CPU of the ECU 10 concurrently executes the routines shown in the flowchart of FIGS. 7 and 8 during the period in which the LTA is being executed. Each routine will be described in order below. At a predetermined timing, the CPU advances the process from step 700 to step 705 and determines whether offset control is being executed in the direction D2. If offset control is not being executed (S705: No), the CPU determines in step 710 whether or not the first offset target candidate has been detected. If the first offset target candidate has not been detected (S710: No), the CPU sets the offset control to the executable mode in step 715, and once terminates this routine in step 795. On the other hand, if the first offset target candidate is detected (S710: Yes), the CPU determines in step 720 whether or not the other vehicle V2 is detected on lane L2 b. If the other vehicle V2 is detected (S720: Yes), the CPU determines that condition 6 is satisfied, and determines in step 725 whether there is a possibility that the other vehicle V2 is about to change lanes to the lane L2 a. If there is a possibility that the lane is about to be changed (S725: Yes), the CPU determines that condition 7 is satisfied, and in step 730, the position of the other vehicle V2 is predicted (calculated) when entering the overtaking section S (that is, when the offset condition for the first offset target candidate is established). Subsequently, at step 735, the CPU determines whether or not the predicted position of the other vehicle V2 is located within the offset stop area A1. When the predicted position is located within the area A1 (S735: Yes), the CPU determines that the condition 8 is satisfied, that is, the specific condition is satisfied. In this case, the CPU sets the offset control to stop mode at step 740. As a result, even if the offset condition is satisfied for the first offset candidate after that, the offset control is not executed. The CPU then proceeds to step 795.
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which input(s) are provided and output result as follows:
Inputs:
prediction of first offset target candidate offset condition satisfaction by the host vehicle entering an overtaking section of the three-dimensional object within a preset prediction time window detected in a first adjacent lane adjacent to a first lateral side of a travel lane in which the host vehicle is traveling
Outputs:
Reduction of offset distance by executing offset suppression control
OR
Non execution of offset control even if the offset condition is predicted to be satisfied for the first offset target candidate
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “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”. 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 with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof 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, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Regarding Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from the claims lacking adequate written description 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.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights