DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 9/15/2023 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Title Objections
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Application
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are independent.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has acted as his/her own lexicographer.
Driving Instructions = an instruction in the form of a display message, voice message, or the like, such as "please increase distance between vehicles, is is created in accordance with the situation, such as insufficient display space.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that certain claims contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f). Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows:
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, (f) paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-8 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “that” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since Claims 1-8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 1-8 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1-8 all recite the route guidance device comprising: a travel plan acquisition unit that respectively acquires travel plans. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The route guidance controller 44 is composed of one or a plurality of computers and is provided with a central processing unit (CPU), random access memory (RAM), and an input/output interface (1/0 interface), for example. Further, the route guidance controller 44 is programmed to perform various control functions pertaining to a route search as deemed necessary” [Specification, ¶ 0035] and “In the present embodiment, in order to realize route guidance of the host vehicle 10, the route guidance controller 44 functions as an information acquisition unit 51, an input/output control unit 52, a route guidance information creation unit 53, an other vehicle detection unit 54, a travel plan comparison unit 55, and a route guidance display control unit 56” [Specification, ¶ 0036]. Therefore this is merely a generic computer.
Claims 1-8 all recite the route guidance device comprising: a travel plan comparison unit that compares the travel plan. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The route guidance controller 44 is composed of one or a plurality of computers and is provided with a central processing unit (CPU), random access memory (RAM), and an input/output interface (1/0 interface), for example. Further, the route guidance controller 44 is programmed to perform various control functions pertaining to a route search as deemed necessary” [Specification, ¶ 0035] and “In the present embodiment, in order to realize route guidance of the host vehicle 10, the route guidance controller 44 functions as an information acquisition unit 51, an input/output control unit 52, a route guidance information creation unit 53, an other vehicle detection unit 54, a travel plan comparison unit 55, and a route guidance display control unit 56” [Specification, ¶ 0036]. Therefore this is merely a generic computer.
Claims 1-8 all recite the route guidance device comprising: a route guidance display control unit that causes the host vehicle to display the route guidance information. In the specification, the corresponding structure found was “The route guidance controller 44 is composed of one or a plurality of computers and is provided with a central processing unit (CPU), random access memory (RAM), and an input/output interface (1/0 interface), for example. Further, the route guidance controller 44 is programmed to perform various control functions pertaining to a route search as deemed necessary” [Specification, ¶ 0035] and “In the present embodiment, in order to realize route guidance of the host vehicle 10, the route guidance controller 44 functions as an information acquisition unit 51, an input/output control unit 52, a route guidance information creation unit 53, an other vehicle detection unit 54, a travel plan comparison unit 55, and a route guidance display control unit 56” [Specification, ¶ 0036]. Therefore this is merely a generic computer.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
This Claim, as currently presented, has two issues with 101.
First, this claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the recitation “A storage device having a route guidance program that causes a computer to operate” given its broadest reasonable
interpretation, encompasses transitory media, such as signals, carrier waiver, or the like. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Office Note: Adding terms that would remove the transitory issues with the current claims such as “non-transitory computer readable medium” or some wording such as this, that is supported in the specification would help overcome this issue.
Second, this claim states “A storage device having a route guidance program that causes a computer to operate”. The claim is rejected as being software per se as
the device and computer are just the place where the “software” is being used, thus it is merely “software”. Therefore the “program” of Claim 10 is “software per se” and is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.03 I.
Office Note: Remove the wording of “program” which moves this claims into “software per se” and only requiring the medium the of the storage device, as stated above, would help overcome this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0291160).
With respect to Claim 1: Kim discloses “A route guidance device for displaying route guidance information on a host vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator) or (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)];
“as an image that guides the host vehicle along a route or that indicates a course that the host vehicle should take” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator) or (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)];
“the route guidance device comprising: a travel plan acquisition unit that respectively acquires travel plans representing travel route plans of the host vehicle and of another vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the controller 17 may check whether the preceding vehicle is located in the front of its vehicle in the drive lane)];
“which is a vehicle different from the host vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6 a,b,c (the controller 17 may check whether the preceding vehicle is located in the front of its vehicle in the drive lane)];
“a travel plan comparison unit that compares the travel plan of the host vehicle and the travel plan of the other vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6 a,b,c (the controller 17 may check whether the preceding vehicle is located in the front of its vehicle in the drive lane)];
“and a route guidance display control unit that causes the host vehicle to display the route guidance information at least when the travel plan of the host vehicle and the travel plan of the other vehicle do not match” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6 a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator) or (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)];
“and that suppresses the display of some or all of the route guidance information when the travel plan of the host vehicle and the travel plan of the other vehicle do match” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator) or (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)].
With respect to Claim 2: Kim discloses “The route guidance device according to claim 1, wherein the route guidance display control unit is configured to display a virtual image representing the route guidance information in a field of view of a driver of the host vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6 a,b,c];
“at least when the travel plan of the host vehicle and the travel plan of the other vehicle do not match” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator) or (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)].
With respect to Claim 3: Kim discloses “The route guidance device according to claim 2, wherein the virtual image is an image of a virtual lead vehicle representing a vehicle leading the host vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)].
With respect to Claim 4: Kim discloses “The route guidance device according to claim 1, wherein the travel plan acquisition unit is configured to use an image of the other vehicle captured by the host vehicle to acquire the travel plan of the other vehicle based on at least one of the following: position information, the turn signal lamp, and the brake lamps of the other vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6 a,b,c (the controller 17 may check whether the preceding vehicle is located in the front of its vehicle in the drive lane)].
With respect to Claim 5: Kim discloses “The route guidance device according to claim 1, wherein the route guidance display control unit is configured to display lead vehicle identification information, which identifies the other vehicle with the matching travel plan as a lead vehicle for leading the host vehicle, as the route guidance information” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6 a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator)].
With respect to Claim 6: Kim discloses “The route guidance device according to claim 5, wherein the route guidance display control unit is configured to display an instruction to follow the lead vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6 a,b,c (may display the virtual preceding vehicle 300 as a specific image)].
With respect to Claim 9: all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in Claims 1-6. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 9 can clearly perform on the device of Claims 1-6. Therefore Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 10: all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in Claims 1-6. The program running on a computer taught/disclosed in Claim 10 can clearly perform on the device of Claims 1-6. Therefore Claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0291160) in view of Takemure et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0327188).
With respect to Claim 7: While Kim discloses “The route guidance device according to claim 5, wherein the travel plan comparison unit is configured to calculate a matching between the travel plan of the host vehicle and the travel plan of the other vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator) or (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)];
“and suppress displaying a part or all of the route guidance information” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator) or (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)];
Kim does not state other vehicles or using a degree of matching for selection.
Takemure, which is in the same field of invention of Kim with following vehicles teaches “wherein the travel plan comparison unit is configured to calculate a degree of matching between the travel plan of the host vehicle and the travel plan of the other vehicle” [Takemure, ¶ 0040 and 0077 (the object determination unit 190 searches for a pair of candidates having a degree of similarity of the on-street motion objects)];
“and upon determining there are a plurality of other vehicles with travel plans that match the travel plan of the host vehicle” [Takemure, ¶ 0040 and 0077 (the simple pattern matching unit 120 can analyze the color of the object from the image acquired by the vehicle-mounted camera 100 and determine whether the object is a leading vehicle or an oncoming vehicle from the analysis result)];
“the route guidance display control unit is configured to select the one other vehicle with the travel plan with the highest degree of matching as the lead vehicle” [Takemure, ¶ 0040 and 0077 (the simple pattern matching unit 120 can analyze the color of the object from the image acquired by the vehicle-mounted camera 100 and determine whether the object is a leading vehicle or an oncoming vehicle from the analysis result)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takemure into the invention of Kim to not only include displaying navigation data based on matched position information (in front of ego vehicle or in the lane of ego vehicle) of a leading vehicle as Kim discloses but to also add degrees of matching to determine the leading vehicle as taught by Takemure with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Takemure into Kim to create a more robust system that can “To stably detect vehicle” [Takemure, ¶ 0005]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as following a vehicle and determing what vehicle you are to follow and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0291160) in view of Takemure et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0327188).
With respect to Claim 8: While Kim discloses “The route guidance device according to claim 5, wherein the travel plan comparison unit is configured to calculate a matching between the travel plan of the host vehicle and the travel plan of the other vehicle” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator) or (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)];
“and suppress displaying a part or all of the route guidance information” [Kim, ¶ 0053-0060 and 0077-0080 with Figures 2 and 6a,b,c (the vehicle cruise control apparatus 1 may display the preceding vehicle indicator) or (the virtual preceding vehicle 200 may be displayed and the preceding vehicle indicator 210 may be displayed)];
Kim does not state other vehicles or using a degree of matching for selection.
Takemure, which is in the same field of invention of Kim with following vehicles teaches “wherein the travel plan comparison unit is configured to calculate a degree of matching between the travel plan of the host vehicle and the travel plan of the other vehicle” [Takemure, ¶ 0040 and 0077 (the object determination unit 190 searches for a pair of candidates having a degree of similarity of the on-street motion objects)];
“and upon determining there are a plurality of other vehicles with travel plans that match the travel plan of the host vehicle” [Takemure, ¶ 0040 and 0077 (the simple pattern matching unit 120 can analyze the color of the object from the image acquired by the vehicle-mounted camera 100 and determine whether the object is a leading vehicle or an oncoming vehicle from the analysis result)];
“the route guidance display control unit is configured to select the one other vehicle with the travel plan with the highest degree of matching as the lead vehicle” [Takemure, ¶ 0040 and 0077 (the simple pattern matching unit 120 can analyze the color of the object from the image acquired by the vehicle-mounted camera 100 and determine whether the object is a leading vehicle or an oncoming vehicle from the analysis result)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takemure into the invention of Kim to not only include displaying navigation data based on matched position information (in front of ego vehicle or in the lane of ego vehicle) of a leading vehicle as Kim discloses but to also add degrees of matching to determine the leading vehicle as taught by Takemure with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Takemure into Kim to create a more robust system that can “To stably detect vehicle” [Takemure, ¶ 0005]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as following a vehicle and determing what vehicle you are to follow and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c