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 .
Correction Letter
The non-final rejection mailed on 01/09/2026 mistakenly stated Jiang failed to disclose claims 9-13 when Jiang did, indeed, disclose said claims. Due to this, a corrected non-final rejection is made here. The period for reply of 3 MONTHS set in said Office action is restarted to begin with the mailing date of this letter. A corrected copy of the last Office action is enclosed.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2023 124 167.2, filed on 09/07/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 filed on 09/04/2024 are presently examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, and are 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
These claims recite “adapt the determined course of the second boundary in a section at a height of the motor vehicle” and “the second boundary is expanded at the height of the motor vehicle.” Given the Application appears to be working in two dimensions, height of the motor vehicle is unclear. Front edge or tip or front bumper of the vehicle would be clearer language, and is what the Examiner is interpretation “height” to mean.
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 1-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 9-13 recite direct control of lateral and/or longitudinal control of the vehicle to progress in an automated manner.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-13 are directed to a control device (i.e. a machine). Claim 14 is directed to a motor vehicle containing the control device, (i.e. a machine). Claims 15 is directed toward a method. Claim 16 is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program executed by a computer (i.e. a machine). Therefore, claims 1-16 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites similar limitations as independent claims 16 and will be used as a representative claim.
Claim 1 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
A control device for controlling or regulating an operation of a motor vehicle, wherein the control device is designed to:
determine a course of a first boundary based on a surroundings model of the motor vehicle, and
determine a course of a second boundary based on the surroundings model,
wherein the first boundary delimits an area maximally traversable by the motor vehicle, and
wherein the second boundary delimits a further area traversable by the motor vehicle, which is located completely within the area delimited by the first boundary and which the motor vehicle can leave for a predetermined period of time,
wherein the control device is designed to adapt the determined course of the second boundary in a section at a height of the motor vehicle so that the further area delimited by the second boundary is expanded in the section and decreases with increasing distance from the motor vehicle.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally determining a course of first and second boundaries based on the surroundings of a motor vehicle where the first and second boundaries delimit nesting areas traversable by the motor vehicle, and adapting the course of the second boundary at the front edge of the vehicle so that it decreases in size the further away from the vehicle. “Surroundings model” is recited broadly, and can be interpreted as the way a human mind perceives and characterizes a surrounding environment. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
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”):
A control device for controlling or regulating an operation of a motor vehicle, wherein the control device is designed to:
determine a course of a first boundary based on a surroundings model of the motor vehicle, and
determine a course of a second boundary based on the surroundings model,
wherein the first boundary delimits an area maximally traversable by the motor vehicle, and
wherein the second boundary delimits a further area traversable by the motor vehicle, which is located completely within the area delimited by the first boundary and which the motor vehicle can leave for a predetermined period of time,
wherein the control device is designed to adapt the determined course of the second boundary in a section at a height of the motor vehicle so that the further area delimited by the second boundary is expanded in the section and decreases with increasing distance from the motor vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely a computer (processor, generic computer components) to perform otherwise mental judgements is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea 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 1 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 elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. 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).
Dependent claims 2-8, 14, and 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 well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al. (“A Novel Maneuver-Based Driving Envelope Generation Approach for Driving Safety Assessment” Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4702. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11104702), in view of Hudecek et al. (US 11077878 B2), hereinafter referred to as Jiang and Hudecek, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Jiang discloses A control device for controlling or regulating an operation of a motor vehicle, wherein the control device is designed to:
determine a course of a first boundary based on a surroundings model of the motor vehicle ([FIG. 12] orange area is the first boundary), and determine a course of a second boundary based on the surroundings model ([FIG. 12] green area is the second boundary), wherein the first boundary delimits an area maximally traversable by the motor vehicle ([FIG. 12] orange area is the reachable-set area, or maximally traversable area), and wherein the second boundary delimits a further area traversable by the motor vehicle, which is located completely within the area delimited by the first boundary ([FIG. 12] green area is a further delimited area, fully within the first, maximum orange area) and
which the motor vehicle can leave for a predetermined period of time ([page 12, second to last paragraph] “The proposed driving envelope can be utilized to determine the intervention time … determine the intervention time for a human-in-the-loop shared driving system by calculating the probability of violating the safe driving envelope” the human driver can leave the safe envelope temporarily until intervention occurs.).
Jiang fails to disclose wherein the control device is designed to adapt the determined course of the second boundary in a section at a height of the motor vehicle so that the further area delimited by the second boundary is expanded in the section ([FIG. 12] see the green area expand from the height (or front) of the car.).
Jiang fails to disclose the further area delimited by the second boundary … decreases with increasing distance from the motor vehicle.
However, Hudecek teaches the further area delimited by the second boundary … decreases with increasing distance from the motor vehicle ([column 20 line 64 through column 21 line 5]) “the transition area between the drivable area and the reduced drivable area can based on a linear transition, an exponential transition, or a logarithmic transition, although other suitable calculations (and resulting shaped areas) are contemplated. For example, a linear transition can result in a transition area that reduces linearly with respect to the transition distance 634 and an exponential transition can result in a transition area that reduces exponentially with respect to the transition distance 634.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang with Hudecek’s teaching of a linearly decreasing size driving area with respect to distance from the vehicle. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to linearly decrease the driving size area with respect to distance in order to be used for transitioning the vehicle from a first reference trajectory to another (Hudecek [column 21, lines 6-11] “such a transition area may be the area in which the vehicle transitions from the first reference line (of the lane) to the biased position in the lane (e.g., which may be determined based on costs for each component and may result in such linear, exponential, etc. reductions).”).
Regarding claim 2, Jiang discloses The control device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is designed to adapt the course of the second boundary so that the further area delimited by the second boundary is maximal at a beginning of a predefined planning horizon ([FIG. 12] see the beginning of the planning horizon, where both first maximum orange boundary and second green boundary share the same space before the second green boundary tapers considering the round boundary. The orange boundary, being the maximum reachable area within the planning horizon over time and distance, means that the green second boundary is also maximal at the beginning of the planning horizon.).
Regarding claim 3, Jiang discloses The control device according to claim 2, wherein the control device is designed to determine a starting point, through which the second boundary extends, at the beginning of the planning horizon based on the course of the first boundary ([FIG. 12] green second boundary is limited by orange first maximal boundary, where starting point at the beginning of the planning horizon is the front tip of the car, wherein said green second boundary is based on said orange, first maximal boundary. There is no starting point depicted in Applicant’s figures and the location of said point is not described in Applicant’s specification. Similarly, there is no description or depiction of point or line showing where “beginning of planning horizon” exists in Applicant’s figures nor Applicant’s specification. Examiner is interpreting the beginning of the planning horizon and starting point to exist either on the line of (perpendicular to the road edges) or at the point tip of the front of the vehicle.).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang fails to explicitly disclose The control device according to claim 3, wherein the control device is designed to determine the starting point by subtracting a predetermined offset from a point through which the first boundary extends at the beginning of the predefined planning horizon according to its determined course. Jiang does disclose a predetermined offset of delta(Y).
However, Hudecek teaches the control device is designed to determine the starting point by subtracting a predetermined offset from a point through which the first boundary extends at the beginning of the predefined planning horizon according to its determined course (Hudecek’s predefined planning horizon is a line at the front edge of the vehicle perpendicular to the road edges. [FIG. 11A] first drivable area’s “point” through which the first boundary extends, similarly depicted in Applicant’s Figure 2 and as interpreted by examiner, exists somewhere along the edge of first drivable area 1102. See first drivable area 1102, and reduced drivable area 1106. The offset from said point results in the reduced drivable area, which lies inside the first drivable area, and is equally offset on both sides at the beginning of the planning horizon by a predetermined offset.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang with Hudecek’s teaching of a determining a starting point by subtracting a predetermined offset at the beginning of the planning horizon from a point through which the first larger boundary extends. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to subtract said offset in order to determine the reduced drivable area which can be used to avoid collisions (Hudecek [column 31, lines 45-48] “the reduced drivable area 1014 can represent offsets from objects in the environment 1000 (where the offsets can be dynamically determined) for the purpose of determining a cost associated with a collision (e.g., a collision cost).”).
Regarding claims 5-8, Jiang fails to disclose The control device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is designed to determine a length of the section, in which the further area delimited by the second boundary is expanded at the height of the motor vehicle, based on a velocity of the motor vehicle.
However, Hudecek teaches the control device is designed to determine a length of the section, in which the further area delimited by the second boundary is expanded at the height of the motor vehicle, based on a velocity of the motor vehicle ([column 21 lines 11-16] “the transition distance 634 can be based on the relative velocity between the vehicle 102 and the object. For example, a higher relative velocity can be associated with a longer transition distance 634 and a lower relative velocity can be associated with a shorter transition distance 634.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jiang with Hudecek’s teaching of a linearly decreasing size driving area with respect to distance according to a determined length based on velocity. One would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to linearly decrease the driving size area based on the velocity in order to better prevent collisions with forward objects, detecting a relative speed change from the ego vehicle to objects and reducing the driving area faster will improve the ego vehicle’s ability to avoid collision (Hudecek [column 9, lines 27-29] “narrowing of the drivable area 120 is a result of the presence and/or the relative deceleration of the vehicle 104a.”).
Regarding claims 9-13, Jiang discloses The control device according to claim 1, wherein the control device is designed to:
determine a path to be driven by the motor vehicle so that the motor vehicle progressing along the path is located at all times completely within the maximally traversable area that is delimited by the first boundary ([FIG. 12] Jiang discloses that the vehicle will remain at least within the maximum orange boundary, and preferably within the green reduced boundary.) and leaves the area delimited by the second boundary at most for the predetermined period of time ([page 12, second to last paragraph] “The proposed driving envelope can be utilized to determine the intervention time … determine the intervention time for a human-in-the-loop shared driving system by calculating the probability of violating the safe driving envelope” the human driver can leave the safe envelope temporarily until intervention occurs.), and
control or regulate a lateral and/or longitudinal control of the motor vehicle so that the motor vehicle progresses in an automated manner along the determined path (Jiang discloses a semi-autonomous vehicle, and the act of engaging intervention constitutes at least lateral control of the motor vehicle so that it progresses within the reduced green boundary forward path.).
Regarding claim 16, Jiang discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program including commands which, upon execution of the program by a computer, causes the computer to carry out a method according to claim 15 ([abstract] “the feasibility of candidate driving maneuvers can be efficiently determined by computing the driving envelope and the proposed driving envelope method can be easily implemented for real-time applications” [page 18, top] “The simulation is carried out in C++ using Intel I7-3520 CPU”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights