DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application filed on August 1, 2024, and claims the benefit of Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0178531, filed on December 11, 2023, and thus the effective filing date is December 11, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The examiner acknowledges the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on December 2, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
4. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case; Claims 1 and 14 are independent claims. This action is made non-final.
5. It is noted that the examiner considered a potential provisional Double Patenting rejection over a co-pending application no. 18/796,283, but it was determined that the instant claims are patentably distinct from those claims. For example, instant independent Claim 1 (and similarly, instant independent Claim 14) requires “determining whether a defect occurs by comparing the fused driving path with the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm; and a control signal outputter outputting a control signal for controlling a behavior of the vehicle according to a final fused driving path reproduced based on a result of determining whether the defect occurs,” which is not recited in the claims of 18/796,283 (and there does not appear to be anything in those claims that would suggest this determination and the corresponding control signal). In addition, as indicated below, the prior art of record does not appear to disclose or suggest the combination of features as required by instant Claim 1 (and similarly, instant Claim 14).
6. The pending claims were evaluated for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and although independent claims recite limitations that could be interpreted as being directed to an abstract idea (for example, “estimating a driving path,” “evaluating a reliability of the driving path,” “producing a fused driving path,” and/or “determining whether a defect occurs by comparing the [paths]”), the independent claims also recite “outputting a control signal for controlling a behavior of the vehicle according to a final fused driving path reproduced based on a result of determining whether the defect occurs,” which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), except as otherwise indicated in the 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), except as otherwise indicated in the 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) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (i.e., receiver, estimator, fuser, detector, or outputter) 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: “a sensing information receiver receiving sensing information…,” “a driving path estimator estimating a driving path …,” “a driving path fuser producing a fused driving path…,” “a defect detector determining whether a defect occurs,” and “a control signal outputter outputting a control signal…,” in Claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see Instant Specification as published (US 2025/0187629 A1), Fig. 1 (elements 110-160), ¶¶ 0036-70; but see discussion of § 112(b) rejection, below regarding these components). For the purposes of examination, these components that do not appear to have a corresponding structure sufficiently described in the Specification are being considered as computing components (implemented in hardware or in a combination of hardware and software of the vehicle control device).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
7. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
With respect to independent Claim 1, Claim 1 recites “a sensing information receiver receiving sensing information…,” “a driving path estimator estimating a driving path …,” “a driving path fuser producing a fused driving path…,” “a defect detector determining whether a defect occurs,” and “a control signal outputter outputting a control signal…,” and these limitations appear to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose a particular structure that is required to perform these functions. It is noted that the instant Specification illustrates that these components are a part of a vehicle control device (see, for example, Specification, Fig. 1), but there does not appear to be any explicit disclosure or requirement that these particular components have to be implemented, at least in part, in hardware, thus a skilled artisan would not be able to readily understand which structure (or structures) are required to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, Claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Dependent Claims 2-13 fail to cure the deficiencies of Claim 1, and are thus also rejected under § 112(b) under the same rationale.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 14-20 are allowed1.
Independent Claim 14, when considered as a whole, is allowable over the prior art of record. The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the combination of steps/features as recited in independent Claim 14, particularly with respect to “determining whether a defect occurs by comparing the fused driving path with the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm; and outputting a control signal for controlling a behavior of the vehicle according to a final fused driving path reproduced based on a result of determining whether the defect occurs,” as further discussed in § Discussion of Prior Art, below. Dependent Claims 15-20 further add limitations to the allowable subject matter of the corresponding independent claim, thus are also allowable.
Discussion of Prior Art
With respect to independent Claim 14, the prior art of Goto et al. (US 2021/0155267 A1, published on May 27, 2021) teaches a vehicle control device, comprising:
receiving a sensing information from a sensor configured in a vehicle (see Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0023-25, 0030, 0031, illustrating different sensors that provide data to the controller).
estimating a driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm according to each preconfigured driving path estimation algorithm using the sensing information (see ¶¶ 0030, 0031, showing generation of the subject vehicle traveling route and preceding vehicle traveling route using sensor data).
evaluating a reliability of the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm (see ¶ 0032, showing calculating the degree of reliability of the subject vehicle traveling route (“Degree of the first reliability”) and of the preceding vehicle traveling route (“Degree of the second reliability”)).
producing a fused driving path based on the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm and the reliability information (see ¶¶ 0032-33, showing integrating (i.e., fusing) of the subject vehicle traveling route and the preceding vehicle traveling route at the calculated integration ratio based on reliability in order to generate a target traveling route).
…
outputting a control signal for controlling a behavior of the vehicle according to a final fused driving path … (see ¶ 0034, showing that the subject vehicle is controlled to travel on the target traveling route).
However, Goto et al. does not appear to explicitly teach or suggest determining whether a defect occurs by comparing the fused driving path with the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm and in turn, does not appear to explicitly teach or suggest that the control signal is outputted according to a final fused driving path reproduced on a result of determining whether the defect occurs, as required by Claim 14.
The prior art of Ishimaru et al. (JP 2018045500 A, published on March 22, 2018 (note that the examiner is referencing the annotated machine translation attached to this Action), hereinafter Ishimaru) is directed towards improving accuracy of a map information error judgment by comparing different paths/routes (see Ishimaru, Abstract). Ishimaru discloses calculating a plurality of different travel routes and explicitly suggests comparing such routes to each other in order to determine if a given map is wrong (i.e., outdated) and which map should be user (see Ishimaru, ¶¶ 0017-26, 0028, 0030-32, 0036; see also ¶¶ 0059-63). However, Ishimaru does not appear to mention “producing a fused driving path based on the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm and the reliability information,” as required by Claim 14, and in turn does not appear to disclose or suggest “determining whether a defect occurs by comparing the fused driving path with the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm,” in the manner recited in Claim 14.
The prior art of Myers et al. (US 2017/0269605 A1, published on September 21, 2017, hereinafter Myers) is directed towards fusion of predicted path attributes and drive history (see Myers, Title). Myers suggests generating combined path attributes based on the path attributes from a predicted path and the path attributes from the drive history and providing such combined path attributes to one or more controllers (see Myers, Fig. 6, ¶ 0051; see also Fig. 4, ¶ 0033). However, Myers appears to be silent with respect to “producing a fused driving path based on the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm and the reliability information,” and particularly with respect to “determining whether a defect occurs by comparing the fused driving path with the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm,” as required by Claim 14.
Other prior art of record similarly fails to disclose or suggest the above-emphasized combination of features as recited in Claim 14. For example, the prior art of Xu et al. (US 2022/0326023 A1, published on October 13, 2022, hereinafter Xu) is directed towards verifying a reliability of map data (see Xu, Abstract). Xu suggests generating an estimated map data using various sensors and checking the stored map data against the estimated map data (see Xu, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 0017-36). However, Xu does not appear to disclose or suggest “producing a fused driving path based on the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm and the reliability information” or “determining whether a defect occurs by comparing the fused driving path with the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm,” as required by Claim 14. The prior art of Phillips et al. (US 2021/0114617 A1, published on April 22, 2021, hereinafter Phillips) is directed towards generating candidate trajectories and selecting one of them to be implemented (see Phillips, Abstract). While Phillips suggests generating a plurality of travel paths (see Phillips, Figs. 2, 4, and 6), Phillips appears to be silent with respect to “producing a fused driving path based on the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm and the reliability information,” and thus also appears to be silent with respect to “determining whether a defect occurs by comparing the fused driving path with the driving path for each driving path estimation algorithm,” as required by Claim 14.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006,1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1,215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
1 Note that Claims 1-13 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, but they are rejected under § 112(b). It is noted that similar reasoning applies to Claims 1-13 with respect to their distinctiveness over the prior art of record as independent Claim 1 appears to closely track with independent Claim 14.