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 .
Priority
1. Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on application filed in Japan on 03/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/06/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bammert et al (U.S. 2011/0054739) and further in view of Suzuki et al (U.S.2019/0193725).
1. As per claims 1,9 Bammert disclosed an exit support method performed by an exit support device configured to support entry and exit of a vehicle, the method comprising:
(a) acquiring a feature point present around the vehicle by using a sensor included in the vehicle [the parking system measures a possible parking space with sensors which are mounted laterally on the vehicle, calculates a parking trajectory from the parking space data, and steers the vehicle into the parking space through active steering intervention. During the parking process, the distance from objects which bound the parking space is monitored by ultrasonic sensors (Ultrasonic Park Assist Sensors--UPA sensors)] (Paragraph. 0002);
(b) estimating a positional relation between a current position of the vehicle and an entry region as an entry destination of the vehicle, based on the feature point acquired in the (a) acquiring and setting information in which a positional relation between a position of the entry region and a feature point present around the entry region is stored in association with each other [The width or depth of the parking space is subsequently taken into account in the calculation of the intermediate position. As a result, the calculation of the intermediate position takes into account how far the objects which bound the parking space project into the roadway, with the result that the actual depth of the parking space in the driving-out direction can be taken into account in the calculation of the intermediate position] (Paragraph. 0021);
(c) acquiring a path from the current position of the vehicle to the entry region based on the positional relation estimated in the
(b) estimating to move the vehicle to the entry region along the path [Known driving assistance devices for assisting a driver of a vehicle in parking, referred to below as parking systems for short, actively assist the driver in entering a parking space longitudinally with respect to a roadway.] (Paragraph. 0002);
(d) storing, in the setting information, an entry start position of the vehicle at which the vehicle starts to move to the entry region [By using the UPA sensors at the front it is also possible to determine or estimate the width of the object which bounds the parking space to the front, from which determination or estimation the front depth of the parking space can be acquired]; and
However Bammert did not disclose (e) estimating, assuming that the entry start position stored in the setting information is an exit region of an exit destination when an instruction is made to cause the vehicle to exit from the entry region, a positional relation between a current position of the vehicle and the exit region based on the feature point acquired in the (a) acquiring, wherein the (c) acquiring includes acquiring a path from the current position of the vehicle to the exit region based on the positional relation estimated in the (e) estimating to move the vehicle to the exit region along the path.
In the same field of endeavor Suzuki disclosed when the subject vehicle 1 exits to the driveway between parking spaces 9 and a wall 5, the driveway width X may be obtained through detecting positions of frames of the parking spaces 9 from the image information obtained by the cameras 11 to 14, detecting the distance from the subject vehicle 1 to the wall 5 from the ranging information obtained by the ranging device 15 and/or the image information obtained by the cameras 11 to 14, and estimating the driveway width X between frames of the parking spaces 9 and the wall 5. Instead of the positions of the parking spaces 9, the position of the parked vehicle 2 may be detected and the distance between the parked vehicle 2 and the wall 5 may be estimated as the driveway width X, or the distance between the subject vehicle 1 and the wall 5 may be estimated as the driveway width X. The driveway width X may be estimated and recorded on the basis of the ranging information obtained by the ranging device 15 and/or the image information obtained by the cameras 11 to 14 at the time of entry (Paragraph. 0068). In one or more embodiments of the present invention, when the distance between the rear wheel axle of the subject vehicle 1 located at the exit start position and the front end of the adjacent object is less than l.sub.1 and when no adjacent objects are detected, the exit route generation unit 505 generates an exit route such that the linear movement distance is zero (L=0). However, if the space next to the subject vehicle 1 is a travel prohibited area or an area in which the road surface condition is poor, the exit route generation unit 505 generates an exit route that includes the linear movement distance L, as in the case in which an adjacent object is present. Examples of the area in which the road surface condition is poor include areas in which water puddle, mud, snow, ice, oil, etc. are present. By generating an exit route that does not pass through such an area, it is possible to prevent deterioration in accuracy of the exit assist due to dirt or slip of the vehicle body (Paragraph. 0076).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing as made to have incorporated when the subject vehicle 1 exits to the driveway between parking spaces 9 and a wall 5, the driveway width X may be obtained through detecting positions of frames of the parking spaces 9 from the image information obtained by the cameras 11 to 14, detecting the distance from the subject vehicle 1 to the wall 5 from the ranging information obtained by the ranging device 15 and/or the image information obtained by the cameras 11 to 14, and estimating the driveway width X between frames of the parking spaces 9 and the wall 5. Instead of the positions of the parking spaces 9, the position of the parked vehicle 2 may be detected and the distance between the parked vehicle 2 and the wall 5 may be estimated as the driveway width X, or the distance between the subject vehicle 1 and the wall 5 may be estimated as the driveway width X. The driveway width X may be estimated and recorded on the basis of the ranging information obtained by the ranging device 15 and/or the image information obtained by the cameras 11 to 14 at the time of entry and furthermore in one or more embodiments of the present invention, when the distance between the rear wheel axle of the subject vehicle 1 located at the exit start position and the front end of the adjacent object is less than l.sub.1 and when no adjacent objects are detected, the exit route generation unit 505 generates an exit route such that the linear movement distance is zero (L=0). However, if the space next to the subject vehicle 1 is a travel prohibited area or an area in which the road surface condition is poor, the exit route generation unit 505 generates an exit route that includes the linear movement distance L, as in the case in which an adjacent object is present. Examples of the area in which the road surface condition is poor include areas in which water puddle, mud, snow, ice, oil, etc. are present. By generating an exit route that does not pass through such an area, it is possible to prevent deterioration in accuracy of the exit assist due to dirt or slip of the vehicle body as taught by Suzuki in the method and system of Bammert to increase the efficiency of vehicle avoidance.
2. As per claims 2,10 Bammert-Suzuki disclosed further comprising (f) determining an exit orientation in which the vehicle exits to the exit region in response to designation by a user, wherein the
(c) acquiring includes acquiring the path corresponding to the orientation determined in the (f) determining to move the vehicle to the exit region along the path (Bammert, Paragraph. 0051).
3. As per claims 3,11 Bammert-Suzuki disclosed comprising (g) determining one exit region from among a plurality of the exit regions in response to designation by a user, wherein the (e) estimating includes estimating the positional relation based on the positional relation corresponding to the exit region determined in the (g) determining and the feature point acquired in the (a) acquiring (Bammert, Paragraph. 0064).
4. As per claims 4,12 Bammert-Suzuki disclosed comprising (g) determining one exit region from among a plurality of the exit regions in response to designation by a user, wherein the (e) estimating includes estimating the positional relation based on the positional relation corresponding to the exit region determined in the (g) determining and the feature point acquired in the (a) acquiring (Bammert, Paragraph. 0069).
5. As per claims 5,13 Bammert-Suzuki disclosed wherein the (d) storing includes storing the entry start position of the vehicle at which the vehicle starts to move to the entry region and a plurality of feature points present around the entry start position in association with each other, based on the entry start position and the feature points acquired in a process of moving from the entry start position to the entry region (Bammert, Paragraph. 0006).
6. As per claims 6,14 Bammert-Suzuki disclosed wherein the (d) storing includes storing the entry start position of the vehicle at which the vehicle starts to move to the entry region and a plurality of feature points present around the entry start position in association with each other, based on the entry start position and the feature points acquired in a process of moving from the entry start position to the entry region (Bammert, Paragraph. 0064 and 0069).
7. As per claims 7,15 Bammert-Suzuki disclosed wherein the (d) storing includes storing the entry start position of the vehicle at which the vehicle starts to move to the entry region and a plurality of feature points present around the entry start position in association with each other, based on the entry start position and the feature points acquired in a process of moving from the entry start position to the entry region (Bammert, Paragraph. 0067).
8. As per claims 8,16 Bammert-Suzuki disclosed wherein the (d) storing includes storing the entry start position of the vehicle at which the vehicle starts to move to the entry region and a plurality of feature points present around the entry start position in association with each other, based on the entry start position and the feature points acquired in a process of moving from the entry start position to the entry region (Suzuki, Paragraph. 0076). Claims 8 and 16 have the same motivation as to claim 1.
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.
9. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method and claim 9 is directed to a device. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. The other analogous claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as the representative claim 1 as discussed here. Claim 1 recites:
An exit support method performed by an exit support device configured to support entry and exit of a vehicle, the method comprising:
(a) acquiring a feature point present around the vehicle by using a sensor included in the vehicle;
(b) estimating a positional relation between a current position of the vehicle and an entry region as an entry destination of the vehicle, based on the feature point acquired in the (a) acquiring and setting information in which a positional relation between a position of the entry region and a feature point present around the entry region is stored in association with each other;
(c) acquiring a path from the current position of the vehicle to the entry region based on the positional relation estimated in the (b) estimating to move the vehicle to the entry region along the path;
(d) storing, in the setting information, an entry start position of the vehicle at which the vehicle starts to move to the entry region; and
(e) estimating, assuming that the entry start position stored in the setting information is an exit region of an exit destination when an instruction is made to cause the vehicle to exit from the entry region, a positional relation between a current position of the vehicle and the exit region based on the feature point acquired in the (a) acquiring, wherein the
(c) acquiring includes acquiring a path from the current position of the vehicle to the exit region based on the positional relation estimated in the (e) estimating to move the vehicle to the exit region along the path.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “Estimating …” all the various data in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (Estimating, analysis, comparison, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An exit support method performed by an exit support device configured to support entry and exit of a vehicle, the method comprising:
(a) acquiring a feature point present around the vehicle by using a sensor included in the vehicle;
(b) estimating a positional relation between a current position of the vehicle and an entry region as an entry destination of the vehicle, based on the feature point acquired in the (a) acquiring and setting information in which a positional relation between a position of the entry region and a feature point present around the entry region is stored in association with each other;
(c) acquiring a path from the current position of the vehicle to the entry region based on the positional relation estimated in the (b) estimating to move the vehicle to the entry region along the path;
(d) storing, in the setting information, an entry start position of the vehicle at which the vehicle starts to move to the entry region; and
(e) estimating, assuming that the entry start position stored in the setting information is an exit region of an exit destination when an instruction is made to cause the vehicle to exit from the entry region, a positional relation between a current position of the vehicle and the exit region based on the feature point acquired in the (a) acquiring, wherein the
(c) acquiring includes acquiring a path from the current position of the vehicle to the exit region based on the positional relation estimated in the (e) estimating to move the vehicle to the exit region along the path.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations above, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and casting steps from / using sensor system(s) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information and casting rays to detect information for use in the determining and other steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The disqualifying, associating and sending steps are also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. An exit support device configured to support entry and exit of a vehicle, the device comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: (a) acquire a plurality of feature points present around the vehicle by using a sensor included in the vehicle merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. In order to expedite prosecution, Examiner also notes that the mere recitation of “wherein the (c) acquiring includes acquiring a path from the current position of the vehicle to the exit region based on the positional relation estimated in the (e) estimating to move the vehicle to the exit region along the path.” in claim 1 and “wherein the processor is configured to acquire a path from the current position of the vehicle to the exit region based on the positional relation estimated in the (e) to move the vehicle to move to the exit region along the path” in claim 9 are not significant enough to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since the claims do not include a positive recitation of “wherein the autonomous vehicle autonomously moves through the environment using the estimation information” (if supported by the specification, such limitation is an example of a significant enough limitation to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 9 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving information and values/features detecting/detectable are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “creating the first map …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performance which in the instant application is creating a map is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 1-8 and 10-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 1-8 and 10-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the
examiner should be directed to Adnan Mirza whose telephone number is (571)-272-3885.
11. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday during normal
business hours. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313)-446-4821.
12. 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 un published 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).
/ADNAN M MIRZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667