DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on September 6, 2024. Claims 1 – 13 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on December 8, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-207634 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: a working-information obtainer, an obstacle state obtainer, an obstacle state determiner, and an assist requestor in claim 1; and an obstacle-avoidance performer in claim 6; an automatic-driving normal-completion determiner in claim 7; a transition condition determiner in claim 8; a positional-information obtainer, a commander and an assist-performer in claim 9; a command inputter, an action plan generator and an assist-performer in claim 11; and a positional-information obtainer, a commander, and an assist-performer in claim 12.
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 it/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 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 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 1 recites an automatic-driving assisting apparatus. The body of claim 1 recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus
Does claim 13 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 13 recites an automatic-driving assisting method, and the body of the claim 13 positively recites a series of method steps. Therefore, claim 13 is directed to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1 and 13 recite a judicial exception? Yes. The claims recite the limitations of “determining to which one of levels the obtained obstacle state belongs, wherein the levels are a first level at which an obstacle is avoided by automatic driving of the mobile body, a second level at which while automatic driving is continued under monitoring by a remote-monitoring person, the remote-monitoring person is made to perform automatic-driving assisting operation, a third level at which driving of the mobile body is performed through remote driving by a monitoring apparatus, and a fourth level at which dispatch of a dispatch worker for performing manual operation is requested.” The determining limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the “at least one processor” language, the claim(s) encompass(es) the user to manually and/or visually perform the aforementioned determining step. As such, this limitation is considered a mental process.
In addition, the determining step “wherein the levels are a first level at which an obstacle is avoided by automatic driving of the mobile body, a second level at which while automatic driving is continued under monitoring by a remote-monitoring person, the remote-monitoring person is made to perform automatic-driving assisting operation, a third level at which driving of the mobile body is performed through remote driving, and a fourth level at which dispatch of a dispatch worker for performing manual operation is requested”, this limitation assigns escalation levels and dictates when human monitoring, or teleoperation are required or dispatched.
The claims also recite the limitations of “making an assist request, when it is determined that the obstacle state belongs to any one of the second level, the third level, and the fourth level.” This limitation actually initiates requests for human assistance/teleoperation/dispatch. As such, these limitations together are considered the organization of human activity.
Do claims 2 – 8 recite a judicial exception? Yes. The claims recite the limitations of
“an image analyzer . . . for analyzing image data” (claim 2);
“a numerical-value analyzer for analyzing . . . numerical data” (claim 2);
“compar[ing] at least one of the image data and the numerical data with a reference data so as to determine to which one of the first level, the second level, the third level, and the fourth level, the obstacle state belongs” (claim 2);
“determin[ing] to which one of the first level, the second level, the third level, and the fourth level the obstacle state belongs to, by use of two or more threshold values set with regard to the obstacle state” (claim 3);
“utilize[ing] at least one of… an obstacle…, a parking angle…, a distance…., the number of operational actions in each of which…, the weather” (claim 4);
“mak[ing] a determination . . . that respective obstacle levels at the first level, at the second level, at the third level, and at the fourth level become higher in that order” (claim 5);
“generate[ing] an action plan for avoiding an obstacle, when the obstacle state determiner determines that the obstacle state belongs to the first level, and then makes the mobile body perform the automatic-driving operation based on the action plan” (claim 6);
“determin[ing], when automatic-driving operation related to the moving or the working, obtained by the working-information obtainer, ends, whether or not the automatic-driving operation has normally been completed, wherein in the case where the automatic-driving normal-completion determiner determines that the automatic-driving operation has not normally been completed, automatic-driving assisting processing for assisting driving of the mobile body is performed again” (claim 7);
“determin[ing] a condition for transition to the next automatic-driving operation, in the case where there exist two or more automatic-driving operation items related to the moving or the working, obtained by the working-information obtainer, and the present automatic-driving operation has normally been completed, wherein when the transition condition determiner determines that transition to the next automatic-driving operation cannot be performed, automatic-driving assisting processing for assisting the driving of the mobile body, related to the next automatic-driving operation, is performed” (claim 8);
The analyzing, comparing, generating, determining, and comprehending limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor” nothing in the claim precludes the analyzing, comparing, generating, determining, and comprehending steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the “at least one processor” language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform the aforementioned analyzing, comparing, generating, determining, and comprehending steps. As such, these limitations are considered a mental process.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1 – 8 and 13 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 1 and 13 include the additional limitations of “obtain[ing] a target position and a command for working” and “obtain[ing] an obstacle state hindering automatic-driving operation for at least any one of moving to the target position and working”. These limitations, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, are claimed generically and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Further the “working-information obtainer”, “obstacle state obtainer”, “obstacle state determiner” and “assist requestor” are merely a processor/generic computer components. These limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In claim 2, the image analyzer and the numerical-value analyzer are used in their conventional capacities. No improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology/technical field is recited. Claims 3- 8 do not recite any additional elements. As such, claims 2 – 8 are specifically directed to the abstract idea.
As such, claims 1 – 8 and 13 are not integrated into practical application.
Step 2B
Do claims 1 – 8 and 13 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 1 – 8 and 13 are ineligible.
Therefore, claims 1 – 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent toapplicant's disclosure;
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0227024 A1 discloses that when an object is recognized on a traveling road or in the air, the drive assist apparatus 1 of this embodiment recognizes whether the object may hinder the traveling of the vehicle. When determination is made that the object may hinder the traveling of the vehicle, the drive assist apparatus 1 of this embodiment assists the driving by executing the obstacle avoidance control involving braking control and steering control. When determination is made that the object has no possibility of hindering the traveling of the vehicle, the obstacle avoidance control is suppressed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666