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 .
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
The instant application contains numerous claims which use “and/or” language. Claims using this construction will be interpreted as if writing using the preferred method of "at least one of A and B" consistent with Ex Parte Gross (13858627 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)). In some claims, the scope of the list of possible alternatives is unclear and further 112(b) rejections have been applied in the appropriate sections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they are unlabeled. Unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels" per MPEP § 608.02(b) paragraph 6.22. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Figure 1 fails to label [11], [12], [100], [101], [102], [10A], A0, A1, A2, A3 at a minimum.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to for using the phrase “. . . on the surrounding area. . . ” in lieu of “. . . in the surrounding area. . ..”
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 16 is rejected for claiming transitory signals. Claim 16 recites “ . . . a memory storing instructions . . ..” Current office guidance interprets a claim reciting a computer readable medium without limitation as inclusive of both transitory and non-transitory computer readable material if not further limited by Applicant’s specification. Review of the specification does not appear to reveal any further limitation to a non-transitory computer readable medium and consequently includes transitory media (MPEP §2016(II), “the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility”). Therefore, claim 16 is interpreted as having claimed transitory computer readable medium; as such it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is noted that claim 15 recites non-transitory media but claim 16 is not dependent on claim 15.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite acquiring , selecting , determining , and selecting . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the implementation is a generic application of an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are well known and conventional in the art.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of claim 1 (see MPEP 2106.03):
Step 1: As a method, the claim is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to:
acquiring surroundings data in surroundings of the vehicle; selecting a surrounding area for the display of the traffic situation on the display device; determining a maximum number of objects for the display of the traffic situation on the display device on the surrounding area; and selecting relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes for the display of the traffic situation on the display device on the surrounding area based on the maximum number of objects.
These limitations recites a concept that falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. Observing an area, determining the max number of objects that could appear on a device and prioritizing which objects should be displayed could be done in the human mind or with the aid of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). An akin example would be a GUI designer observing an intersection and recording the most important traffic obstacles at a busy intersection and using that information to design a display.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The Applicant does recite additional elements such as a display device but a generic computer or phone device could be used for implementation and this does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Applicant has recited a claim in which an area is observed and the observed objects are prioritized and a maximum number of object that can be displayed is determined. The claim includes a display device, but the display is generally claimed at an apply it level and control of the display is not claimed. These limitations do not integrate the claim into a practical application beyond a general effort to monopolize the exception of prioritizing observed objects in a traffic situation. Any generic display, generic computer or phone device could be used and the display is claimed in such a way as to be generally linking to a particular technological environment without integration into a practical.
Step 2B: The claim does not recites an element or combination of elements that is unconventional or significantly more than its individual elements.
“[A]n ‘inventive concept’ is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. (MPEP § 2106.05 citing Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, at 72-73)). “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” . (MPEP § 2106.05). The claim recites the additional elements including:
The display is generally claimed and is not controlled. The display is recited in such a way that the Applicant is merely adding well understood and conventional in the art. The limitations do not claim, recite or detail behavior beyond general description but rather are claimed at an “apply it” level of detail that does not meet the test for “significantly more” (MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into significantly more than abstract idea but rather would monopolize the abstract idea.
Regarding the further claims:
Claims 2-3 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 because claims 2-3 are still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as they only add dynamic selection of area or objects respectively to the mental process and does not include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 4-5 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 because claims 4-5 are still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as they only add lane data to the mental process and does not include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 6-8 do not cure the deficiencies of claims 1 or 6 because claims 6-8 are still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as they only add distance considerations to the mental process and does not include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 9-11 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 because claims 9-11 are still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as they only refine the manner in which the maximum number of objects is determined, which is refining the mental process and does not include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 12-13 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 because claims 12-13 are still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as they only refine the selection of objects occurs which is refining the mental process and does not include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea.
Claim 14 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 because the first limitation of claim 14 only “provides” the display of the traffic information and does not explicitly control the display. The second limitation claim 14 “includes display a changing traffic situation in the surroundings of the vehicle.” Therefore, the claim does not include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 15-18 do not cure the deficiencies of claims 1, 16 and 17 because claims 15-18 are still drawn to the “mental process” group of abstract ideas as they only generally claim well known hardware at an “apply it level.” The computer-readable medium, control unit, and display device are only claimed generally and do not improve the technology, nor do they include an extra solution activity or instructions on how to apply the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and have been rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behring (DE 102019117704 A1) in view of Bangalore et al. (US 20220350995 A1) (the combination of which will be referred to as 'combination Behring' hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 1, Behring teaches a method for providing:
a display of a traffic situation on a display device (Behring: ¶ 005; a control unit of an ego-vehicle, which is designed to display an image, in particular an environment image relating to a traffic situation)
of an assisted, automated and/or autonomously driving vehicle, the method comprising: (Behring: ¶ 015; steering movement can be... B. automatically by an actuator of the vehicle) acquiring surroundings data in surroundings of the vehicle; (Behring: ¶ 007; traffic situation in the vicinity of the ego vehicle can be determined based on environmental data from one or more environmental sensors (e.g., cameras) . . . determining a maximum number of objects for the display of the traffic situation on the display device on the surrounding area; and (Behring: ¶ 180; procedure 610 includes selecting 611 a maximum of N (e.g. B. with N=1, or N<2) road users 120 in each of one or more different environment sectors 401 , 402 , 403 , 404 , 405 of the environment) selecting relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes for the display of the traffic situation on the display device on the surrounding area based on the maximum number of objects. (Behring: ¶ 181; the number of road user symbols displayed simultaneously can be limited to N per surrounding sector)
Behring does not explicitly teach: selecting a surrounding area for the display of the traffic situation on the display device; however, Bangalore does teach:
selecting a surrounding area for the display of the traffic situation on the display device; (Bangalore: ¶ 045; program 128 may receive the images captured by the cameras of the camera system 108 and may perform processing on the images to perform recognition for the current travel path 104 of the vehicle 102 based on one or more dynamically reconfigured disparity maps).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bangalore with the teachings of Behring because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving safety by reducing the computer processing requirements of a ADAS systems (Bangalore: ¶ 033).
Regarding claim 2, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Bangalore further teaches:
wherein the selecting the surrounding area includes dynamically selecting the surrounding area. (Bangalore: ¶ 103; program may configure the system to select several areas of higher priority in at least one of the images. Accordingly, the system may select an area 710 corresponding to a pothole 712 as a higher priority area)
Regarding claim 3, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Bangalore further teaches:
wherein the selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes includes dynamically selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes. (Bangalore: ¶ 103; system may select an area 718 corresponding to a tracked vehicle 720 as another higher priority area.)
Regarding claim 4, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the acquiring surroundings data includes determining lane data (Behring: ¶ 017; in response to the detected lane event, to display the road user symbol for the road user (especially for the ego vehicle) at a second lateral position within the displayed lane that differs from the first lateral position.) "including a number of lanes, a direction of travel on a lane, a lane type, (Behring: ¶ 015; lane-changing event can be a steering movement of a steering device (e.g. B. of the steering wheel) of the Ego vehicle)" "a lane marking, a lane width, a lane orientation and/or a lane course, and/or object data including an object type, an object position, a distance to the vehicle, a relative speed to the vehicle (Behring: ¶ 015; lane event may include a notification or intervention by an emergency lane assistant of the Ego vehicle to form an emergency lane)" and/or a relative orientation to the vehicle. (Behring: ¶ 014; the lane event may be related to a lateral positioning of the road user (especially the ego vehicle) within the actual lane and /or to a lateral guidance of the road user)
Regarding claim 5, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Bangalore further teaches:
wherein the selecting the surrounding area takes into account lane data and/or object data in the surroundings of the vehicle. (Bangalore: ¶ 103; recognition program may configure the system to select several areas of higher priority in at least one of the images. Accordingly, the system may select an area 710 corresponding to a pothole 712 as a higher priority area.)
Regarding claim 6, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the selecting the surrounding area takes into account at least one distance to the vehicle in at least one direction with respect to the vehicle. (Behring: ¶ 136; the road user 120 with the highest relevance for the ego-vehicle 110 and/or with the smallest distance to the ego-vehicle 110 can be selected.)
Regarding claim 7, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 6. Behring further teaches:
wherein the at least one distance includes a first distance in a direction of travel determined based on at least one operating parameter of the vehicle including a speed of the vehicle and/or an acquisition range and/or visibility range of at least one sensor of the vehicle, and/or wherein the at least one distance includes a second distance in the direction of travel determined based on at least one navigation parameter including a planned route, the direction of travel and/or an expected turning direction. (Behring: ¶ 014; the lane event may be related to a lateral positioning of the road user (especially the ego vehicle) within the actual lane and /or to a lateral guidance of the road user)
Regarding claim 8, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 6. Behring further teaches:
"wherein the at least one distance includes a distance in a vehicle transverse direction determined based on at least one traffic parameter including a number of lanes, a direction of travel on a lane, a lane type, a lane marking, a lane width, a lane orientation, a road course and/or traffic density. (Behring: ¶ 184; determining 622 that, due to a change in the positioning of the second road user 110, 120 relative to the first road user 110, 120, the second road
user symbol 210, 220 penetrates into a border zone)"
Regarding claim 10, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account lane data and/or object data. (Behring: ¶ 184; determining 622 that, due to a change in the positioning of the second road user 110, 120 relative to the first road user 110, 120, the second road user symbol 210, 220 penetrates into a border zone) (Behring: ¶ 185; in response to the fact that the second road user symbol 210, 220 intrudes into the border zone 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, includes causing 623 that the second road user symbol 210, 220 is at least partially hidden) (Behring: ¶ 141; debouncing can be provided for the showing and/or hiding of symbols 220 in a
sector 401, 402, 403, 404, 405 in order to avoid disturbing and confusing display effects
caused by flickering of symbols)"
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes is carried out adaptively, and/or wherein the selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects is carried out using a prioritization function and/or a characteristic diagram. (Behring: ¶ 184; determining 622 that, due to a change in the positioning of the second road user 110, 120 relative to the first road user 110, 120, the second road user symbol 210, 220 penetrates into a border zone) (Behring: ¶ 185; in response to the fact that the second road user symbol 210, 220 intrudes into the border zone 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, includes causing 623 that the second road user symbol 210, 220 is at least partially hidden)
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
wherein the selecting the relevant and/or prioritized objects and/or lanes takes into account one or more active driving assistance systems including assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous driving, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous keeping a distance from a vehicle in front, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous lane keeping, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous overtaking, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous monitoring of a blind spot, assistance systems for assisted, automated or autonomous turning and/or assistance systems for parking the vehicle. (Behring: ¶ 015; lane event can be caused by...B. include a warning from the lane keeping assist system of the Ego vehicle)
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
further comprising: providing the display of the traffic situation on the display device on the surrounding area (Behring: ¶ 018; a stable and consistent representation of a traffic situation to be provided on the screen of the ego vehicle) on which the relevant and/or prioritized objects (Behring: ¶ 141; vehicle 120 repeatedly enters and exits a specific sector 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, thereby "displacing" another vehicle 120 from the display priority there) and/or lanes are visualized, wherein the providing includes displaying a changing traffic situation in the surroundings of the vehicle. (Behring: ¶ 020; symbol for a road user in the vicinity of the ego vehicle may therefore only be displayed at a single lateral position within a displayed lane (apart from an animated transition to another lane))
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method according to claim 1. (Behring: ¶ 104; storage medium may contain a software program that is configured to run on a processor and thereby execute at least one of the procedures)
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring further teaches:
a processor; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the control unit to carry out the method according to claim 1. (Behring: ¶ 104; storage medium may contain a software program that is configured to run on a processor and thereby execute at least one of the procedures)
Regarding claim 17, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 16. Behring further teaches:
the control unit according to claim 16. (Behring: ¶ 005; a control unit of an ego-vehicle, which is designed to display an image, in particular an environment image relating to a traffic situation)
Regarding claim 18, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 17. Behring further teaches:
the control unit according to claim 17. (Behring: ¶ 005; a control unit of an ego-vehicle, which is designed to display an image, in particular an environment image relating to a traffic situation)
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Behring as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanizaki et al. (US 20060220923 A1).
Regarding claim 9, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Behring does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects is carried out in a parameterized manner, and/or wherein the determining the maximum number of objects is parameterized; however, Tanizaki does teach:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects is carried out in a parameterized manner, and/or wherein the determining the maximum number of objects is parameterized. (Tanizaki: ¶ 075; contraction scale of the summarized map is changed in accordance with the distance between the vehicle position and the destination, while at the same time changing the number of objects to be displayed thereon. Further, the number of objects to be displayed may be changed in accordance with the running speed of the vehicle.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tanizaki with the teachings of Behring because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving map readability at high speeds. (Tanizaki: ¶ 005).
Regarding claim 11, as detailed above, combination Behring teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 1. Combination Behring does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account at least one operating parameter of the vehicle including a speed of the vehicle and/or a state of a direction indicator, and/or wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account at least one navigation parameter including a planned route, a direction of travel and/or an expected turning direction; however, Tanizaki does teach:
wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account at least one operating parameter of the vehicle including a speed of the vehicle (Tanizaki: ¶ 075; contraction scale of the summarized map is changed in accordance with the distance between the vehicle position and the destination, while at the same time changing the number of objects to be displayed thereon. Further, the number of objects to be displayed may be changed in accordance with the running speed of the vehicle.) and/or a state of a direction indicator, and/or wherein the determining the maximum number of objects takes into account at least one navigation parameter including a planned route, a direction of travel and/or an expected turning direction. (Tanizaki: ¶ 070; the wide-area map is displayed by being greatly contracted (to a sufficiently small contraction scale .alpha.). Then, the number of objects displayed is reduced in proportion to the adjust value z=k.alpha., and less information required to guide the vehicle becomes available)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tanizaki with the teachings of Behring because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving map readability at high speeds. (Tanizaki: ¶ 005).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Ezaki (US 20230024247 A1) which discloses “a display control unit configured to determine a display mode and a display position of one or a plurality of display objects displayed on the one or plurality of display regions, in accordance with the size of the one or plurality of display regions, wherein the display control unit displays a specific display object on the boundary line, and moves display of the specific display object along with moving of the boundary line”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663