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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/05/2024 and 01/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0012], “Some of functions” should read “Some functions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the target recognized by the recognition unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as no target that has been recognized is previously recited. In claim 1, “a recognition target that is the target recognized by the recognition unit” should read either “a recognition target recognized by the recognition unit” or “a recognition target that is a target recognized by the recognition unit”.
Claims 2 and 4 recite the limitation “notify the recognition target”, and claim 3 recites the limitation “notifying the recognition target”. However, the specification suggests, particularly in paragraph [0025], that notifying the recognition target means notifying about the recognition target, not sending a notification to the recognition target. As such, “notify the recognition target” should read “notify about the recognition target” in claims 2 and 4, and “notifying the recognition target” should read “notifying about the recognition target” in claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
For claim 4, Examiner recommends the following optional change in language for clarity: “configured to set a target serving as a starting point of control” should read “configured to set a control target serving as a starting point of control”, and “the recognition target that is set as the target serving as the starting point of the control by the starting point setting unit” should read “the recognition target that is set as the control target”.
Claim Interpretation
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, a recognition target or target serving as a starting point of control may comprise multiple objects. This is consistent with specification paragraphs [0017] and [0020-0021]; paragraph [0020] recites “the starting point setting unit 14 may set the left and right dividing lines of the own lane as the target serving as the starting point of control.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the notification unit is configured to display, in the recognition target, a part recognized by the recognition unit and a part not recognized by the recognition unit in different modes when notifying the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than the reference value.” In the context of [0025], “a part not recognized by the recognition unit” has been interpreted as including “a part of the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than a reference value” and a part not recognized without a known calculated confidence level.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a confidence level calculation unit configured to calculate a confidence level in recognition of a recognition target…” in claim 1.
“a notification unit configured to notify a supervisor of the vehicle about the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than a reference value” in claim 1.
“wherein the notification unit is configured to notify the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than the reference value in a mode according to a value of the confidence level” in claim 2.
“wherein the notification unit is configured to display, in the recognition target, a part recognized by the recognition unit and a part not recognized by the recognition unit in different modes…” in claim 3.
“a starting point setting unit configured to set a target serving as a starting point of control for the autonomous driving based on a course plan for the autonomous driving in the vehicle” in claim 4.
“wherein the notification unit is configured to notify the recognition target that is set as the target serving as the starting point of the control by the starting point setting unit and has the confidence level equal to or lower than the reference value” in claim 4.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 recites the generic placeholder “a confidence level calculation unit” plus functional language “calculate a confidence level in recognition of a recognition target…” linked by “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure or acts to perform the functional language. In paragraphs [0019] and [0030], the specification discloses the confidence level calculation unit performs this function. While several examples of what the calculation of the confidence level may be based on are disclosed in [0019], no algorithm or calculation is explicitly disclosed and linked to the claimed function. In paragraph [0016], the specification discloses “The ECU 4 functionally includes… a confidence level calculation unit 13”. The ECU appears to be equivalent to a generic computer. A generic computer has been interpreted as the corresponding hardware structure performing the claimed function. However, the specification does not disclose the necessary steps or algorithm to perform the claimed function.
Claim 1 recites the generic placeholder “a notification unit” plus functional language “notify a supervisor of the vehicle about the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than a reference value” linked by “configured to”. In paragraphs [0023] and [0030], the specification discloses the notification unit performs this function. In paragraph [0016], the specification discloses “The ECU 4 functionally includes… a notification unit 15”. The ECU appears to be equivalent to a generic computer, and outputting a signal to send a notification has been considered to be a basic function of a generic computer. Therefore, a generic computer has been interpreted as the corresponding structure performing the claimed function.
Claim 2 recites the generic placeholder “the notification unit” plus functional language “notify the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than the reference value in a mode according to a value of the confidence level” linked by “configured to”. In paragraph [0024], the specification discloses the notification unit performs this function. As with claim 1, outputting a signal to send a notification has been considered to be a basic function of a generic computer. Therefore, a generic computer has been interpreted as the corresponding structure performing the claimed function.
Claim 3 recites the generic placeholder “the notification unit” plus functional language “display, in the recognition target, a part recognized by the recognition unit and a part not recognized by the recognition unit in different modes…” linked by “configured to”. In paragraph [0025], the specification discloses the notification unit performs this function. As with claim 1, outputting a signal to send a notification has been considered to be a basic function of a generic computer. Therefore, a generic computer has been interpreted as the corresponding structure performing the claimed function.
Claim 4 recites the generic placeholder “a starting point setting unit” plus functional language “set a target serving as a starting point of control for the autonomous driving based on a course plan for the autonomous driving in the vehicle” linked by “configured to” without reciting sufficient structure or acts to perform the functional language. In paragraphs [0020], the specification discloses the starting point setting unit performs this function. While several examples of what the starting point of control may be are disclosed in [0020-0022], no algorithm is explicitly disclosed and linked to the claimed function. In paragraph [0016], the specification discloses “The ECU 4 functionally includes… a starting point setting unit 14”. The ECU appears to be equivalent to a generic computer. A generic computer has been interpreted as the corresponding hardware structure performing the claimed function. However, the specification does not disclose the necessary steps or algorithm to perform the claimed function.
Claim 4 recites the generic placeholder “the notification unit” plus functional language “notify the recognition target that is set as the target serving as the starting point of the control by the starting point setting unit and has the confidence level equal to or lower than the reference value” linked by “configured to”. In paragraph [0026], the specification discloses the notification unit performs this function. As with claim 1, outputting a signal to send a notification has been considered to be a basic function of a generic computer. Therefore, a generic computer has been interpreted as the corresponding structure performing the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a confidence level calculation unit configured to calculate a confidence level in recognition of a recognition target…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
Claims 2-4 are rejected for depending upon the rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation “a starting point setting unit configured to set a target serving as a starting point of control for the autonomous driving based on a course plan for the autonomous driving in the vehicle” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a confidence level calculation unit configured to calculate a confidence level in recognition of a recognition target…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a confidence level calculation unit in the ECU is disclosed to perform the claimed function, the specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-4 are rejected for depending upon the rejected independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, claim limitation “a starting point setting unit configured to set a target serving as a starting point of control for the autonomous driving based on a course plan for the autonomous driving in the vehicle” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While a starting point setting unit in the ECU is disclosed to perform the claimed function, the specification merely recites the function and does not identify specific steps or an algorithm sufficient to perform the function, as described above in the Claim Interpretation section. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claim 1 is directed toward an apparatus. Therefore, the independent claim 1 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-4 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts. In this case, the independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
Independent claim 1 recites “a confidence level calculation unit configured to calculate a confidence level in recognition of a recognition target that is the target recognized by the recognition unit”. In light of the specification, the claimed calculating may be done “by comparing a recognition result acquired from another surrounding vehicle… with a recognition result of the recognition unit 11” [0019]. This is similar to a person receiving two images of an object from different sources, evaluating the quality and content of the images, and giving a rating of their similarity (judgement). Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 such as 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; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. For example, independent claim 1 recites the additional elements of a confidence level calculation unit; a confidence level in recognition; a recognition target; the target recognized by the recognition unit; the recognition unit; a notification unit; notify a supervisor of the vehicle about the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than a reference value; a supervisor; the vehicle; and a reference value. These limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”), add insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally link use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d). More specifically,
a confidence level calculation unit: this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).
a confidence level in recognition: this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
a recognition target: this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
the target recognized by the recognition unit: this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
the recognition unit: this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).
a notification unit: this limitation amounts to implementing the abstract idea on a computer (“apply it”).
notify a supervisor of the vehicle about the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than a reference value: this limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
a supervisor and the vehicle: these limitations amount to generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
a reference value: this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
Therefore, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, independent claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (a confidence level calculation unit; the recognition unit; a notification unit) employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea and, therefore, does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use (a supervisor; the vehicle) cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the additional element of mere instructions to apply an abstract idea at a high degree of generality (a confidence level in recognition; a recognition target; the target recognized by the recognition unit; a reference value) does not render the abstract idea eligible. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitation of notify a supervisor of the vehicle about the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than a reference value as recited above, is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitation of notify[ing] a supervisor of the vehicle about the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than a reference value has been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g):
notify a supervisor of the vehicle about the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than a reference value is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); and/or Selecting information for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claim 1 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-4 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-3, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 2-3 are patent ineligible. Notes regarding a few of the dependent claims are recited below for clarity purposes.
wherein the notification unit is configured to notify the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than the reference value in a mode according to a value of the confidence level: This limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see above citations).
a mode and a value: These limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
wherein the notification unit is configured to display, in the recognition target, a part recognized by the recognition unit and a part not recognized by the recognition unit in different modes when notifying the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than the reference value: This limitation is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see above citations).
a part recognized by the recognition unit and a part not recognized by the recognition unit: These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
different modes: This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (“apply it”).
Therefore, claims 2-3 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner notes that as currently presented, the autonomous driving of a vehicle as recited in the preamble of claim 1 is not claimed or integrated with the device of claims 1-3. However, claim 4 does integrate the judicial exception with a practical application because the claim implies control of the vehicle is based off of the target set by the starting point setting unit. Therefore, claim 4 is not rejectable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (US 20180065552 A1; hereafter “Mori”).
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses
A recognition state notification device in an autonomous driving system that executes autonomous driving of a vehicle using a recognition result of a recognition unit configured to recognize a surrounding target based on a detection result of an external sensor (Recognition state notification device: external situation recognition unit 11, vehicle position recognition unit 12, travel plan generation unit 14, and display control unit 16 in the electronic control unit (ECU) 10 of autonomous driving system 100; see Fig. 1 and [0037]. Autonomous driving system 100 controls the driving of vehicle V via travel control unit 15 and actuator 9 according to a plan generated by travel plan generation unit 14 based on the recognition results from external situation recognition unit 11 and vehicle position recognition unit 12 [0018, 0046-0047, 0050]. ECU 10 comprises a processor and memory to execute a stored program to perform the functions of the above units [0036]. See “the external situation recognition unit 11 acquires the detection result of the external sensor 2 as the surroundings information of the vehicle V… The external situation recognition unit 11 recognizes the external situation of the vehicle V based on the acquired information. The external situation of the vehicle V may include, for example, [possible surrounding targets:] the number of lanes on the travelling road, a lane boundary line, a center line… ” [0038-0039].), the recognition state notification device comprising:
a confidence level calculation unit configured to calculate a confidence level in recognition of a recognition target that is the target recognized by the recognition unit (Confidence level calculation unit: external situation recognition unit 11 and/or vehicle position recognition unit 12 in ECU 10. See “When recognizing the external situation of the vehicle V, the external situation recognition unit 11 may calculates a certainty level [confidence level] of the recognition in association with the recognition result” of a recognition target [0040]. Various examples of recognition targets in the surrounding environment are given in [0039], including road lines and a vehicle. See “When recognizing the travel lane of the vehicle V or the lateral position of the vehicle V, the vehicle position recognition unit 12 may calculate the certainty level of the recognition in association with the recognition result” [0044]. See also [0042].); and
a notification unit configured to notify a supervisor of the vehicle about the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than a reference value (Notification unit: display control unit 16 in ECU 10 [0037]; supervisor: driver [0032]. See “the display control unit 16 generates the object according to the certainty level of the recognition… In the example in FIG. 4C, …since the certainty level of the recognizing the other vehicle [recognition target] V3 is lower than the predetermined [reference] value, the rectangular object T3 of a dashed line is adopted as the recognition result information of the other vehicle V3” [0067]. The display control unit displays (notifies the driver of) the generated recognition objects on display unit 8b [0066]. A confidence level equal to or lower than a reference value is equivalent to a confidence level lower than the closest value higher than the reference value; for example, x ≤ 3 is equivalent to x < 4 when only considering integer values. See also [0053], [0062-0074], and Figs. 4A-5D.).
Regarding claim 2, Mori discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and additionally discloses
wherein the notification unit is configured to notify the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than the reference value in a mode according to a value of the confidence level (See “the display control unit 16 generates the object according to the certainty level of the recognition… In the example in FIG. 4C, …since the certainty level of the recognizing the other vehicle [recognition target] V3 is lower than the predetermined [reference] value, the rectangular object T3 of a dashed line [a mode] is adopted as the recognition result information of the other vehicle V3” [0067]. The mode may include shape, type of line (e.g., solid vs dashed), color, color density, and transparency of the display object “according to the certainty level” and whether or not a display object is generated and displayed [0067]. See also [0066-0068], [0071-0072], and Figs. 4A-5D.).
Regarding claim 3, Mori discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and additionally discloses
wherein the notification unit is configured to display, in the recognition target, a part recognized by the recognition unit and a part not recognized by the recognition unit in different modes when notifying the recognition target whose confidence level is equal to or lower than the reference value (As stated in the Claim Interpretation section, the recognition target may comprise more than one object, for example, left and right lane lines. “In the example in FIG. 5C, since the certainty [confidence] level of the recognizing the boundary line L1 [a part of the recognition target recognized by the recognition unit] is equal to or higher than the predetermined [reference] value, the [display] object T3 of a solid line [first mode] is adopted as the recognition result information of the boundary line L1. On the other hand, since the certainty level of recognizing the boundary lines L2 and L3 is lower than the predetermined value, the [display] objects T4 and T5 of dashed lines [second mode] are adopted as the recognition result information of the boundary lines L2 and L3” (a part of the recognition target that is not recognized by the recognition unit) [0072]. See also colors assigned according to the confidence level [0072]. See also [0070-0074].).
Additionally, even if interpreted such that the recognition target is only one object—for example, boundary line L3 in Fig. 5A, the display object T5, which marks the recognized part of boundary line L3, does not include the entirety of boundary line L3. See annotations below of Fig. 5A. Thus, there is a part of boundary line L3 that is displayed in one mode (object T5 with certainty level lower than the predetermined value) and a part that is displayed in a different mode (no display object generated/shown).
PNG
media_image1.png
327
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated Fig. 5A of Mori
Regarding claim 4, Mori discloses the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and additionally discloses
a starting point setting unit configured to set a target serving as a point of control for the autonomous driving based on a course plan for the autonomous driving in the vehicle (Starting point setting unit: travel plan generation unit 14 in ECU 10 [0037]. The autonomous driving (including speed and steering control) is implemented by travel control unit 15 according to a target speed, target vehicle-to-vehicle distance, and target lateral position, which are set in a travel plan (course plan) by travel plan generation unit 14 [0050-0052]. By setting a target vehicle-to-vehicle distance, the travel plan generation unit 14 sets a vehicle in front of the autonomous vehicle V as a target serving as a starting point of control; by setting a target lateral position, the travel plan generation unit sets the lane boundary lines as a target serving as a starting point of control. The external situation recognition unit 11 then recognizes and stores these targets [0038-0039], which feed into the travel plan [0046-0047]. See also [0018] and [0042].),
wherein the notification unit is configured to notify the recognition target that is set as the target serving as the starting point of the control by the starting point setting unit and has the confidence level equal to or lower than the reference value (Vehicle is the recognition target: see “the display control unit 16 generates the object according to the certainty level of the recognition… In the example in FIG. 4C, …since the certainty level of the recognizing the other vehicle [recognition target] V3 is lower than the predetermined [reference] value, the rectangular object T3 of a dashed line is adopted as the recognition result information of the other vehicle V3” [0067]. Boundary lane lines are the recognition target: see “In the example in FIG. 5C, …since the certainty level of recognizing the boundary lines [recognition target] L2 and L3 is lower than the predetermined [reference] value, the [display] objects T4 and T5 of dashed lines are adopted as the recognition result information of the boundary lines L2 and L3” [0072]. The display control unit displays (notifies the driver of) the generated recognition objects on display unit 8b [0066], [0071]. See also [0053], [0062-0074], and Figs. 4A-5D.).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ono and Fuwamoto (US 20200114933 A1) discloses displaying course markers according to a system confidence level for execution of automatic driving.
Kozuka et al. (JP 2017159881 A) discloses notifying the recognition target (e.g., a pedestrian) that a vehicle has recognized the target.
Ichikawa et al. (US 20150187214 A1) discloses setting a recognition target based on user feedback and notifying the user of an autonomous driving system about a change in the recognition target.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am-6:00 pm ET.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658