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 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 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: “driving control unit”, “state determination unit”, and “level determination unit” in claims 1 and 19, “information generation unit” in claim 4, and “recognition control unit” in claim 7.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-6 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. (Step 1: Yes.) Device claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
An information processing device comprising:
a driving control unit configured to control automated driving of a vehicle;
a state determination unit, configured to determine, on a basis of state information indicating a state of a system for the automated driving, whether or not the system is in a preliminary state where there is a high probability that an abnormality will occur in the system; and
a level determination unit configured to determine whether to shift or maintain an automated driving level on a basis of a response from a driver in a case where the system is determined to be in the preliminary state.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this device determines whether a system abnormality will occur, and then based on the determination and an input from a driver, determines whether or not a current automated driving level ought to be shifted. These are actions which can be performed in the human mind; therefore, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2016.05.h). The claim recites a driving control unit, a state determination unit, and a level determination unit; the broadest reasonable interpretation of these elements are functions implemented by a CPU, therefore, the elements amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claim further recites that the driving control unit is configured to control automated driving of a vehicle; however, the control of the vehicle is not positively recited, therefore, the driving control unit merely links the abstract idea to the field of use of autonomous vehicles. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additionally recited elements discussed above are recited at so high a level of generality as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claims 18 and 19, the latter of which recites a generic camera which merely links the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of processing image data) is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6 and 17 further define the abstract idea, and are thus abstract for the same reasons. No additional elements are recited; therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 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, 4, 5, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh (US 20220264081, cited in applicant IDS) in view of Goto et al. (US 20190126942, cited in applicant IDS).
Claim 1.
Satoh teaches:
a driving control unit configured to control automated driving of a vehicle
(Satoh – [0036]) “The vehicle control unit 3 is a control unit that performs the ADAS, automatic driving, and the like.”
a state determination unit configured to determine, on a basis of state information indicating a state of a system for the automated driving, whether or not the system is in a preliminary state where there is a high probability that an abnormality will occur in the system
(Satoh – Abstract) “a sensing performance evaluation and diagnosis system capable of detecting a failure sign of an external-environment recognition sensor”
a level determination unit configured to determine whether to shift or maintain an automated driving level
(Satoh – [0093]) “When the performance deterioration degree is ‘middle’, it is determined that the sensing system is highly likely to fail although the vehicle can travel for the time being. At this time, when there is a driver, in order to prevent the occurrence of a suspicious movement due to autonomous driving, safety is considered, and warning is given to the driver and the autonomous driving is stopped.”
Satoh does not explicitly teach a driver response; however, Goto et al. teaches:
a [[level]] determination unit configured to determine whether to shift or maintain an
(Goto – [0099]) “A response from the driver to an assistance display related to immediate vehicle control such as a control-related request or a control-related suggestion is received by the operation member mounted on the own vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the sensor performance evaluation system of Satoh with the assistance system of Goto et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce troublesomeness for the driver (Goto – [0099]).
Claim 4.
The combination of Satoh and Goto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Satoh further teaches:
further comprising an information generation unit configured to generate shift confirmation information for urging a shift of the automated driving level in a case where the system is determined to be in the preliminary state
(Satoh – [0093]) “When the performance deterioration degree is ‘middle’, it is determined that the sensing system is highly likely to fail although the vehicle can travel for the time being. At this time, when there is a driver, in order to prevent the occurrence of a suspicious movement due to autonomous driving, safety is considered, and warning is given to the driver and the autonomous driving is stopped.”
the level determination unit determines whether to shift or maintain the automated driving level on a basis of
(Satoh – [0093]) “When the performance deterioration degree is ‘middle’, it is determined that the sensing system is highly likely to fail although the vehicle can travel for the time being. At this time, when there is a driver, in order to prevent the occurrence of a suspicious movement due to autonomous driving, safety is considered, and warning is given to the driver and the autonomous driving is stopped.”
Satoh does not explicitly teach receiving driver confirmation; however, Goto et al. teaches:
the [[level]] determination unit determines whether to shift or maintain the
(Goto – [0099]) “A response from the driver to an assistance display related to immediate vehicle control such as a control-related request or a control-related suggestion is received by the operation member mounted on the own vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 5.
The combination of Satoh and Goto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Satoh further teaches:
the level determination unit determines to shift the automated driving level in a case where
(Satoh – [0093]) “When the performance deterioration degree is ‘middle’, it is determined that the sensing system is highly likely to fail although the vehicle can travel for the time being. At this time, when there is a driver, in order to prevent the occurrence of a suspicious movement due to autonomous driving, safety is considered, and warning is given to the driver and the autonomous driving is stopped.”
Satoh does not explicitly teach receiving driver confirmation; however, Goto et al. teaches:
the response from the driver to the [[shift]] confirmation information is detected
(Goto – [0099]) “A response from the driver to an assistance display related to immediate vehicle control such as a control-related request or a control-related suggestion is received by the operation member mounted on the own vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 16.
The combination of Satoh and Goto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Satoh further teaches:
the state determination unit determines whether or not the system is in a critical state higher in the probability than the preliminary state on a basis of the state information
(Satoh – [0094]) “When the performance deterioration degree is ‘high’, it is determined that the sensing system is in an extremely dangerous state where the sensing system will soon fail. In this case, the autonomous driving is stopped or the emergency stop is performed in the safety zone.”
in a case where the system is determined to be in the critical state, the driving control unit performs an avoidance maneuver of the vehicle regardless of the response from the driver
(Satoh – [0094]) “When the performance deterioration degree is ‘high’, it is determined that the sensing system is in an extremely dangerous state where the sensing system will soon fail. In this case, the autonomous driving is stopped or the emergency stop is performed in the safety zone.”
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 19.
Satoh teaches:
a camera mounted on a vehicle
(Satoh – [0033]) “The external-environment sensor 11 is a sensor that recognizes the surrounding environment of the own vehicle 10, and is, for example, a camera sensor”
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Satoh and Goto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 20220089170).
Claim 2.
The combination of Satoh and Goto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Satoh does not explicitly teach a chip temperature; however, Hu et al. teaches:
the state information indicates a temperature of a chip for recognition processing of recognizing an object around the vehicle
(Hu – [0045]) “the processing engine may obtain a physical parameter (e.g., a voltage, a current, a temperature) of one or more hardware components (e.g., the sensors 112, a circuit board).”
the state determination unit determines whether or not the system is in the preliminary state on a basis of whether or not the temperature exceeds a threshold temperature
(Hu – [0045]) “the processing engine 122 may determine the status information of the one or more hardware components based on their physical parameter(s).”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the sensor performance determination system of Satoh with the chip temperature sensing of Hu et al. Both Satoh and Hu et al. are directed towards determining the health of a component; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined in this fashion with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because it is well known in the art that high temperatures can result in damage to hardware components.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Satoh and Goto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 2019185246, cited in applicant IDS).
Claim 3.
The combination of Satoh and Goto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Satoh teaches varying levels of emergency response, Satoh does not explicitly teach a plurality of automated driving levels. However, Nakamura et al. teaches:
while the vehicle is traveling at a first automated driving level, the level determination unit determines whether to make a shift to a second automated driving level lower than the first automated driving level or maintain the first automated driving level
(Nakamura – [0034]) “The conditions for allowing autonomous driving at each level may differ for each level, and it is preferable that the conditions be stricter as the level increases.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the sensor diagnosis response of Satoh with the additional driving levels of Nakamura et al. One would have been motivated to do this because complex control devices may have more than one appropriate response to a malfunctioning device (Nakamura – [0007]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Satoh and Goto et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 20210402993).
Claim 6.
The combination of Satoh and Goto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. Neither Satoh nor Goto et al. explicitly teaches returning to the automated driving level on a basis of a response from the driver; however, Zhao et al. teaches:
in a case where the system is determined to be no longer in the preliminary state after the shift of the automated driving level, the information generation unit generates return confirmation information for urging a return to the automated driving level before the shift
(Zhao – [0066]) “a notification is provided to the driver inquiring as to whether the driver wishes to resume movement of the vehicle.”
the level determination unit determines to return to the automated driving level before the shift on a basis of a response from the driver to the return confirmation information
(Zhao – [0066]) “resumption of the movement of the vehicle 100 is provided only when the driver requests such movement, for example via the adaptive cruise control input device 152”
[Examiner’s Note: As is well-known in the art, adaptive cruise control is an example of partially automated driving.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the sensor anomaly response system of Satoh with the resumption of automated driving of Zhao et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to take into account all the considerations that may come into account when resuming control of a vehicle (Zhao – [0002]).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Satoh and Goto et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kijima (US 20210284194, cited in applicant IDS).
Claim 7.
The combination of Satoh and Goto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Goto et al. further teaches:
in a case where the response from the driver to the shift confirmation information is not detected, the level determination unit determines to maintain the automated driving level
(Goto – [0086]) “No response that approves the suggestion within a certain time after the performance of the display of the control-related suggestion may be received as a response that rejects the suggestion”
Neither Satoh nor Goto et al. explicitly teaches imposing a restriction; however, Kijima teaches:
the level determination unit determines to maintain the automated driving level and imposes a restriction on at least one of processing of the system or travel of the vehicle
(Kijima – [0019]) “Situations in which autonomous driving cannot be continued include a failure of the main battery or a sensor abnormality.”
(Kijima – [0060]) “When the limp home control is started, the limp home control unit 11 may determine the traveling scene of the autonomous vehicle M and limit the sensors to be activated according to the determined traveling scene.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the sensor diagnosis system of Satoh with the limp-home mode of Kijima. One would have been motivated to add the limp-home capabilities of Kijima in order to handle a situation in which autonomous driving cannot be continued and manual driving is not performed (Kijima – [0019]).
Claim 8.
The combination of Satoh, Goto et al., and Kijima teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Satoh further teaches:
comprising a recognition control unit configured to control recognition processing of recognizing an object around the vehicle on a basis of an image captured by a camera mounted on the vehicle
(Satoh – [0003]) “various external-environment recognition sensors such as a camera and a radar are mounted on a vehicle”
Satoh does not explicitly teach reducing a load of the recognition processing; however, Kijima teaches:
the recognition control unit reduces a load of the recognition processing on a basis of the restriction imposed by the level determination unit
(Kijima – [0060]) “When the limp home control is started, the limp home control unit 11 may determine the traveling scene of the autonomous vehicle M and limit the sensors to be activated according to the determined traveling scene.”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 7.
Claim 12.
The combination of Satoh, Goto et al., and Kijima teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. While Satoh teaches a camera, Satoh does not explicitly teach a front-facing camera. However, Kijima teaches:
the camera includes a front camera configured to capture the image with a front of the vehicle as an imaging range
(Kijima – [0007]) “the limp-home usable sensors may include a front camera configured to detect the external environment in front of the autonomous vehicle.”
It would have been obvious to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 7.
Claim 13.
The combination of Satoh, Goto et al., and Kijima teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as discussed above. Satoh further teaches:
the driving control unit controls deceleration of the vehicle on a basis of the restriction imposed by the level determination unit
(Satoh – [0094]) “When the performance deterioration degree is ‘high’, it is determined that the sensing system is in an extremely dangerous state where the sensing system will soon fail. In this case, the autonomous driving is stopped or the emergency stop is performed in the safety zone.”
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Satoh, Goto et al., and Kijima as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Barth et al. (US 20240294192).
Claim 14.
The combination of Satoh, Goto et al., and Kijima teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly teaches a slow lane; however, Barth et al. teaches:
the driving control unit controls the travel of the vehicle in a slow lane
(Barth – [0024]) “In a stop on hard shoulder maneuver, also known as a lane change braking maneuver, the vehicle changes from a first lane, which it is driving in when the maneuver is initiated, to another accessible lane.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the limp-home mode of Kijima with the lane change braking maneuver of Barth et al. Kijima teaches determining that a road has multiple lanes, and Barth et al. teaches changing lanes; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these teachings could be used together with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 15, and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9: While the closest available art, Kijima, teaches reducing a load of the recognition processing by limiting the sensors to be activated in a restricted mode, Kijima fails to teach reducing a frame rate for the image obtained by the camera.
Regarding claim 10: While the closest available art, Kijima, teaches reducing a load of the recognition processing by limiting the sensors to be activated in a restricted mode, Kijima fails to teach reducing a number of image pyramids used in the recognition processing.
Regarding claim 11: While the closest available art, Kijima, teaches reducing a load of the recognition processing by limiting the sensors to be activated in a restricted mode, Kijima fails to teach narrowing down decision trees for the recognition processing.
Regarding claim 15: Kijima does not teach lifting the restricted mode. The closest available art, Xu et al. (CN 111845341), teaches deactivating a limp-home mode for a vehicle based on a driver passing an alcohol test. However, Xu et al. fails to teach lifting the restriction based on the vehicle no longer being in a preliminary state in which there is a high probability that an abnormality will occur in the automated driving system.
Regarding claim 17: The closest available art, Hu et al., teaches obtaining a physical parameter of a hardware component (Hu – [0045]). However, Hu et al. does not teach or suggest monitoring an electromagnetic wave intensity of a chip in order to determine whether the system is in a preliminary state.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights