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
Claims 1-6 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—the specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “wherein, when no obstacles are recognized by the recognition unit in any one of the right and left regions, the direction calculation unit uses a true horizontal direction as a direction along an obstacle in the region where no obstacles are recognized.” The terms “…uses a true horizontal direction as a direction along an obstacle in the region where no obstacles are recognized.” causing indefiniteness, ambiguity, and confusion as to operating a vehicle in a region where no obstacles are determined or present and yet using the directions along the obstacles. When no obstacles are determined how a vehicle can operate in the directions along the obstacle. Therefore, the claimed subject matter of claim 2 renders the claim indefinite. For the sake of rejecting the claimed subject matter, the examiner interprets the claim 2 as proceeding between the adjacent vehicle based on determination that enough space is available for the vehicle to drive through.
Appropriate direction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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, sixth 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.
The claims 1-5 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) 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;
(B) 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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unit” in claims 1-5.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitations: “The control unit 110 is a function carried out by a computer built into the body unit 101, which controls the entire autonomous traveling device 100…”, as disclosed in Pages 6:25-33, 7:1-33, and 8:1-7, and Fig. 4 elements 100-140 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire (US Pub. No.: 2017/0169710 A1: hereinafter “Beaurepaire”) in view of Shitamoto et al. (US Pub. No.: 2013/0166134 A1: hereinafter “Shitamoto”).
Consider claims 1, 6:
Beaurepaire teaches an autonomous traveling device (Fig. 4 elements 300-324, “…the apparatus 300 for a vehicle 500…”), an autonomous traveling device control method (See Beaurepaire, e.g., “…a method for lane filtering…a method for determining whether lane filtering may be performed…a distance between a second vehicle and a third vehicle adjacent to each other and in front of a first vehicle is obtained…determined whether the distance is big enough for the first vehicle to proceed through the space between the second first vehicle and the third vehicle. An indication is provided on the basis of the result of the determining…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0006]-¶ [0010], ¶ [0020]-¶ [0022], ¶ [0042]-¶ [0049], and Fig. 4 elements 300-324, Figs. 5-6a-c elements 500-504, steps 402-410, Figs, 7a-b, 10 element s500-610, steps 420-424), comprising: recognition step of recognizing an obstacle for each of right and left regions sandwiching (e.g., “…the vehicle 500 may receive information from other vehicles 502 (block 406), which are in the proximity of the vehicle 500…comprise information of the distance between two adjacent vehicles which defines the free space…”, of Figs. 6a-c elements 500-504a-c, and V1a, V2a, V3a; V1b, V2b, V3b) a body of the autonomous traveling device (See Beaurepaire, e.g., “…the vehicle 500 may receive information from other vehicles 502 (block 406), which are in the proximity of the vehicle 500…receive information from one or more vehicles ahead of and which are proceeding the same direction and on the same road 504 than the vehicle 500. That information may comprise information of the distance between two adjacent vehicles which defines the free space i.e. the width usable for lane filtering…Sensors of the vehicle 500 may gather information about vehicles in front to determine those vehicles' parameters, such as location, direction, speed, type (e.g. width), identification information etc. to know if the vehicle 500 can lane filter…”, of ¶ [0042]-¶ [0049], ¶ [0074]-¶ [0089], ¶ [0093]-¶ [0097], ¶ [0101]-¶ [0103], and Fig. 4 elements 300-324, Figs. 5-6a-c elements 500-504, steps 402-410, Figs, 7a-b, 10 element s500-610, steps 420-424); a direction calculation step of calculating a direction along the obstacle for each of the right and left regions (See Beaurepaire, e.g., “…comprise information of the distance between two adjacent vehicles which defines the free space…Sensors of the vehicle 500 may gather information about vehicles in front to determine those vehicles' parameters, such as location, direction, speed, type (e.g. width), identification information etc. to know if the vehicle 500 can lane filter…”, of ¶ [0042]-¶ [0049], ¶ [0074]-¶ [0089], ¶ [0093]-¶ [0097], ¶ [0101]-¶ [0103], and Fig. 4 elements 300-324, Figs. 5-6a-c elements 500-504, steps 402-410, Figs, 7a-b, 10 elements 500-610, steps 420-424).
Beaurepaire teaches and a deviation control step of causing the body to move away from the obstacle (e.g., having enough width/space in between adjacent vehicles to comfortably move away from the adjacent vehicles of Figs. 6a-c elements 500-504a-c, and V1a, V2a, V3a; V1b, V2b, V3b) by combining a rotational movement (e.g., The vehicles in the queue may also estimate whether there is enough space at the locations of the vehicles and send the result of the estimation to the vehicle 500, wherein the vehicle 500 may use the result and show the driver whether lane filtering is possible and if so, how far in the queue, therefore, maneuvering (slightly turning left, therefore, rotational movement) the motorcycle to drive through the space available between the adjacent vehicles, of Figs, 7a-b, 10 element s500-610, steps 420-424) that changes orientation of the body toward an intermediate direction of each of the directions calculated at the direction calculation step (See Beaurepaire, e.g., “…operations regarding lane filtering may be mainly performed…wherein the vehicles 500 may send sensor data such as location and possibly distance to other vehicles beside, in front of and/or behind, to the cloud 600. Calculations may then be performed in the cloud 600 to determine possibilities for lane filtering if a vehicle has indicated that it might consider lane filtering when space between two queues allows it…”, of ¶ [0042]-¶ [0049], ¶ [0074]-¶ [0089], ¶ [0093]-¶ [0097], ¶ [0101]-¶ [0103], and Fig. 4 elements 300-324, Figs. 5-6a-c elements 500-504, steps 402-410, Figs, 7a-b, 10 element s500-610, steps 420-424). Beaurepaire further teaches “…determining whether lane filtering may be performed…a distance between a second vehicle and a third vehicle adjacent to each other and in front of a first vehicle is obtained…determined whether the distance is big enough for the first vehicle to proceed through the space between the second first vehicle and the third vehicle. An indication is provided on the basis of the result of the determining…By combining the gathered data, the apparatus 300 may determine whether there is enough space for a bike to go between two vehicles, whether this is considered safe and whether there is a proper space to possibly stop after those vehicles...”, of ¶ [0042]-¶ [0049], ¶ [0074]-¶ [0089], ¶ [0093]-¶ [0097], ¶ [0101]-¶ [0103], and Fig. 4 elements 300-324, Figs. 5-6a-c elements 500-504, steps 402-410, Figs, 7a-b, 10 element s500-610, steps 420-424. However, Beaurepaire does not explicitly teach a backward movement that causes the body to move backward.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Shitamoto teaches a backward movement that causes the body to move backward (See Shitamoto, e.g., “…The retreat action is the action of the autonomous mobile body 1 retreating from the passage 95 where an interfering obstacle 66 exists. When there is not enough clearance for the autonomous mobile body 1 to pass by the interfering obstacle 66 on the passage 95, the retreat action is selected. The standby action of the retreat action is the action of retreating to the retreat path 70 which intersects with the passage 95 and standing by at the pull-off position…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0091]-¶ [0097], and Figs. 4a-d elements 1-95).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine “…a method for lane filtering…a method for determining whether lane filtering may be performed…a distance between a second vehicle and a third vehicle adjacent to each other and in front of a first vehicle is obtained…determined whether the distance is big enough for the first vehicle to proceed through the space between the second first vehicle and the third vehicle. An indication is provided on the basis of the result of the determining…”, as disclosed in Beaurepaire with “a backward movement that causes the body to move backward”, as taught in Shitamoto with a reasonable expectation of success to yield a system, method for robustly, seamlessly, and efficiently “…the optimal action to be taken by the autonomous mobile body for avoiding interference with an obstacle.”, as taught in ¶ [0005].
Consider claim 2:
The combination of Beaurepaire, Shitamoto teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Beaurepaire teaches wherein, when no obstacles are recognized by the recognition unit in any one of the right and left regions (See Beaurepaire, e.g., “…comprise information of the distance between two adjacent vehicles which defines the free space…Sensors of the vehicle 500 may gather information about vehicles in front to determine those vehicles' parameters, such as location, direction, speed, type (e.g. width), identification information etc. to know if the vehicle 500 can lane filter…”, of ¶ [0042]-¶ [0049], ¶ [0074]-¶ [0089], ¶ [0093]-¶ [0097], ¶ [0101]-¶ [0103], and Fig. 4 elements 300-324, Figs. 5-6a-c elements 500-504, steps 402-410, Figs, 7a-b, 10 elements 500-610, steps 420-424), the direction calculation unit uses a true horizontal direction as a direction along an obstacle in the region where no obstacles are recognized (See Beaurepaire, e.g., “…operations regarding lane filtering may be mainly performed…wherein the vehicles 500 may send sensor data such as location and possibly distance to other vehicles beside, in front of and/or behind, to the cloud 600. Calculations may then be performed in the cloud 600 to determine possibilities for lane filtering if a vehicle has indicated that it might consider lane filtering when space between two queues allows it…”, of ¶ [0042]-¶ [0049], ¶ [0074]-¶ [0089], ¶ [0093]-¶ [0097], ¶ [0101]-¶ [0103], and Fig. 4 elements 300-324, Figs. 5-6a-c elements 500-504, steps 402-410, Figs, 7a-b, 10 element s500-610, steps 420-424).
Consider claim 3:
The combination of Beaurepaire, Shitamoto teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Beaurepaire teaches wherein the recognition unit recognizes the obstacle by a sensor and also in map information (See Beaurepaire, e.g., “…Sensors of the vehicle 500 may gather information about vehicles in front to determine those vehicles' parameters, such as location, direction, speed, type (e.g. width), identification information etc. to know if the vehicle 500 can lane filter…the controller 302 may use the location information and the map to produce visible information of the current location and a corresponding section of the map on the display 32…”, of ¶ [0042]-¶ [0049], ¶ [0074]-¶ [0089], ¶ [0093]-¶ [0097], ¶ [0101]-¶ [0103], and Fig. 4 elements 300-324, Figs. 5-6a-c elements 500-504, steps 402-410, Figs, 7a-b, 10 elements 500-610, steps 420-424).
Consider claim 4:
The combination of Beaurepaire, Shitamoto teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Beaurepaire teaches (e.g., The vehicles in the queue may also estimate whether there is enough space at the locations of the vehicles and send the result of the estimation to the vehicle 500, wherein the vehicle 500 may use the result and show the driver whether lane filtering is possible and if so, how far in the queue, therefore, maneuvering (slightly turning left, therefore, rotational movement) the motorcycle to drive through the space available between the adjacent vehicles, of Figs, 7a-b, 10 element s500-610, steps 420-424). Therefore, teaching “a rotational movement”. Shitamoto teaches wherein the deviation control unit executes a turning movement (retreating and detouring actions of Figs. 4a-d elements 1-95) that is a combination of the backward movement and the rotational movement (See Shitamoto, e.g., “…The retreat action is the action of the autonomous mobile body 1 retreating from the passage 95 where an interfering obstacle 66 exists. When there is not enough clearance for the autonomous mobile body 1 to pass by the interfering obstacle 66 on the passage 95, the retreat action is selected…The detour action of the retreat action is the action of taking a detour from the passage 95 where the interfering obstacle 66 exists. In the foregoing case, the autonomous mobile body 1 passes through the detour route 97 from the passage 95 where the interfering obstacle 66 exists, and moves to the destination 67…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0091]-¶ [0097], and Figs. 4a-d elements 1-95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beaurepaire with the teachings of Shitamoto, so as to, with a reasonable expectation of success, yield a robust, seamless, and efficient system, and method for mitigating collisions, thereby, preserving precious lives.
Consider claim 5:
The combination of Beaurepaire, Shitamoto teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 4. In addition, Beaurepaire teaches wherein a shape of the body when viewed from a top-and-bottom direction is a rectangle-like shape (See Beaurepaire, e.g., “…The other vehicle may be a bike, a motorcycle, a car, a truck, a lorry, a bus…”, of ¶ [0042]-¶ [0049], ¶ [0074]-¶ [0089], ¶ [0093]-¶ [0097], ¶ [0101]-¶ [0103], and Fig. 4 elements 300-324, Figs. 5-6a-c elements 500-504, steps 402-410, Figs, 7a-b, 10 elements 500-610, steps 420-424.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
COHEN et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021/0284143 A1) teaches “The presently disclosed subject matter includes a computerized method and a control system mountable on a vehicle for autonomously controlling the vehicle and enabling to execute a point-turn while avoiding collision with nearby obstacles. More specifically, the proposed technique enables an autonomous vehicle, characterized by an asymmetric contour, to execute a collision free point-turn, in an area crowded with obstacles. The disclosed method enables execution of a point turn quickly, without requiring the vehicle to stop.”
PARK (US Pub. No.: 2022/0001859 A1) teaches “An autonomous driving system for preventing collision with a cut-in vehicle may include a counterpart vehicle detector detecting driving information of a surrounding vehicle to deliver the driving information of the surrounding vehicle to a vehicle controller, a host vehicle detector detecting driving information of a host vehicle to deliver the driving information of the host vehicle to the vehicle controller, and the vehicle controller generating avoidance routes for avoiding collision with the surrounding vehicle entering a front of the host vehicle, designating a reach location according to a speed at a specific interval on the avoidance routes, and selecting an avoidance route for avoiding the collision among the plurality of avoidance routes, and then controlling a speed of the host vehicle to reach the reach location for avoiding the collision with the surrounding vehicle on the selected avoidance route, when there is possibility of collision.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BABAR SARWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5584. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to 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, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached on (313)446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BABAR SARWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667