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 .
Claim Objections
1. Claims 12-19 are 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. Furthermore, claims 7 and 8 also contain allowable subject matter and would be allowable upon overcoming the 112b rejections below and having the claims rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION. The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
4. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
“A rejection under § 112, ¶ 2 may be appropriate in the following situations when examining means-plus-function claim limitations under § 112, ¶ 6:
(1) when it is unclear whether a claim limitation invokes § 112, ¶ 6;
(2) when § 112, ¶ 6 is invoked and there is no disclosure or there is insufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; and/or
(3) when § 112, ¶ 6 is invoked and the supporting disclosure fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.”
See Supplemental Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 USC §112 and for Treatment of related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7168 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claims 1-8 contains at least one limitation that invokes §112 ¶6, while failing to provide sufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1565, (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Thus, claims 75 and 82 are rejected under §112 ¶2.
Applicant is required to:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step, or non-structure terms) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant is required to clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Rationale for invoking §112 6¶
Examiners will apply § 112, ¶ 6 to a claim limitation that meets the following conditions:
(1) The claim limitation uses the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for’’ or a non-structural term that does not have a structural modifier;
(2) the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for’’ or the non-structural term recited in the claim is modified by functional language; and
(3) the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for’’ or the non-structural term recited in the claim is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function.
This modifies the 3-prong analysis in MPEP § 2181, which will be revised in due course. See Supplemental Examination, 76 FR at 7167.
Regarding Claims 1-8, the claim recites, inter alia, an information collection unit, a v2x communication unit, an information comparison unit, and a multi angle view environment configuration unit, a subject information unit, a surrounding information collection unit, an information coding unit, a duplicate information determination unit, a redundant information filtering unit, a false detected object determination unit, and a false detected object filtering unit.
“When the claim limitation does not use the phrase ‘‘means for’’ or ‘‘step for,’’ examiners should determine whether the claim limitation uses a nonstructural term (a term that is simply a substitute for the term ‘‘means for’’). Examiners will apply § 112, ¶6 to a claim limitation that uses a nonstructural term associated with functional language, unless the nonstructural term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘‘filters’’), or (2) modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function. The following is a list of non-structural terms that may invoke § 112, ¶6: ‘‘mechanism for,’’ ‘‘module for,’’ ‘‘device for,’’ ‘‘unit for,’’ ‘‘component for,’’ ‘‘element for,’’ ‘‘member for,’’ ‘‘apparatus for,’’ ‘‘machine for,’’ or ‘‘system for.’’ This list is not exhaustive, and other non-structural terms may invoke § 112, ¶6.” See id.
In Claims 1-8, the system comprises of the above stated units which are placeholders followed by “for” and performs a function thereby invoking §112 ¶6.
Rationale for determining there is insufficient disclosure
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333, (Fed. Cir. 2008). The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm as well as the general purpose computer or microprocessor. See WMS Gaming, Inc., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The written description of the specification must at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm that performs the claimed function. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. See Finisar Corp., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, (Fed. Cir. 2008).
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if the written description of the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38. For example, merely referencing to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing any detailed explanation of the appropriate programming, See Id. at 1334, or simply reciting software without providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, even when one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing the software to convert a general purpose computer to a special purpose computer to perform the claimed function. See Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41.
Regarding Claims 1-8, the specification is absent of any physical structure for the above stated placeholder “units”. There is no corresponding processor or memory in the specification corresponding to the units. The applicant is reminded that general purpose computers is not sufficient to provide the required structural disclosure, Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, and that indefiniteness analysis does not turn on the name of the structure that does the processing. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VergiSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The applicant’s specification fails to provide any detailed explanation of the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm that performs the claimed function. The applicant is reminded that the requirement for the disclosure of an algorithm can be avoided if one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing the software to convert a general purpose computer to a special purpose computer to perform the claimed function is unpersuasive because the understanding of one skilled in the art does not relieve the patentee of the duty to disclose sufficient structure to support means-plus-function claim terms. The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. See Supplemental Examination Guidelines, 76 FR at 7168. As result, the claims 1-8 have failed the §112 ¶6 requirement of disclosing the corresponding structure that performs the functional limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., US 2020/0137580 in view of Han et al., US 2020/0413264.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches of a multi-angle object recognition system using V2X technology (See [0036], [0061]-[0066] and [0072] multiple angles/cameras with v2x), the system comprising:
an information collection unit that collects information about a subject vehicle and surrounding information (See [0026]-[0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0053], [0057], [0061]-[0066] and [0072] collecting data with sensors regarding the vehicle, other vehicles and the surrounding environment) ;
a V2X communication unit that transmits and receives information collected by the information collection unit between vehicles (See [0026]-[0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0053], [0057], [0061]-[0066] and [0072] transmitting the collected information between vehicles and infrastructure); and
a multi-angle view environment configuration unit that configures driving environment around the subject vehicle into a multi-angle view environment (See [0026]-[0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0053], [0057], [0061]-[0066] and [0072] multiple camera and angle based autonomous driving based on the v2x messages and information collected and shared).
Yang is silent with respect to an information comparison unit that compares information collected by the subject vehicle with information received from another vehicle and when a false detection occurs, excludes the false detection from a control target and wherein the driving environment is based by combining only normal information among the information collected by the subject vehicle and the information received from the another vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Han teaches of an information comparison unit that compares information collected by the subject vehicle with information received from another vehicle (See [0070]-[0080], [0107], and [0116]-[0117] cross validation module for comparing data from other vehicles to the subject vehicles) and when a false detection occurs, excludes the false detection from a control target and wherein the driving environment is based by combining only normal information among the information collected by the subject vehicle and the information received from the another vehicle (See [0070]-[0080], [0107], and [0116]-[0117] excludes and doesn’t use the malicious data having the false data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang to have incorporated the teachings of Han for the mere benefit of providing for more accurate data for autonomous driving.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the information collection unit includes:
a subject vehicle information collection unit that collects information related to the subject vehicle (See Yang, [0026]-[0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0053], [0057], [0061]-[0066] and [0072]; Han, [0070]-[0080], [0107], and [0116]-[0117]); and
a surrounding information collection unit that collects information about an object around the subject vehicle (See Yang, [0026]-[0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0053], [0057], [0061]-[0066] and [0072]; Han, [0070]-[0080], [0107], and [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the information collected by the subject vehicle information collection unit includes at least one of a location of the subject vehicle, a distance to another vehicle, a speed of the subject vehicle, a driving direction of the subject vehicle, and a brake status of the subject vehicle (See Yang, [0026]-[0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0053], [0057], [0061]-[0066] and [0072] speed, direction, distance; Han, [0070]-[0080], [0107], and [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the subject vehicle information collection unit and the surrounding information collection unit include sensors mounted to the vehicles (See Yang, [0026]-[0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0053], [0057], [0061]-[0066] and [0072] multiple mounted sensors; Han, [0070]-[0080], [0107], and [0116]-[0117]).
Regarding claim 9, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the method of claim 9, wherein after configuring the multi-angle view environment, the multi-angle view environment is updated by reflecting newly recognized normal object information (See Yang, [0026]-[0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0053], [0057], [0061]-[0066] and [0072] speed, direction, distance updating of object lists that are recognized; Han, [0070]-[0080], [0107], and [0116]-[0117]).
7. Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., US 2020/0137580 in view of Han et al., US 2020/0413264, and in further view of Alalusi, CA 3113406.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yang and Han teaches the system of claim 1. The combination is silent with respect to further comprising an information coding unit that codes the information collected by the subject vehicle and the information received from the another vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Alalusi teaches of comprising an information coding unit that codes the information collected by the subject vehicle and the information received from the another vehicle (See [0095]-[0103] which discloses of v2v data sharing and wherein the collected data is compared to detect discrepancies by coding, digitizing, and comparing the data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Yang and Han to have incorporated the teachings of Alalusi for the mere benefit of being able to better comparing the data for anomalies and/or discrepancies.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the information comparison unit compares the coded information collected by the subject vehicle with the coded information received from the another vehicle (See Alalusi, [0095]-[0103] which discloses of v2v data sharing and wherein the collected data is compared to detect discrepancies by coding, digitizing, and comparing the data).
Regarding claim 10, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 11, the combination further teaches wherein the coding is performed in a binary code method using 0 and 1 (See [0095]-[0103] which discloses of v2v data sharing and wherein the collected data is compared to detect discrepancies by coding, digitizing, and comparing the data, wherein the digitized data comprises of bits of 0’s and 1’s).
Contact
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
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).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov