DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 07/29/2024. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and examined below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is more than 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 detection result storage unit that stores a detection result of an external sensor installed in a host vehicle” in claims 1-3 and “a step (b) of storing a detection result of the external sensor” in claim 5 (the Examiner is interpreting the limitations as a detection result storage unit 12 that cumulatively stores the surrounding environment information obtained from the external sensor 21 in [0030] of the as-filed specification);
“a moving object recognition unit that recognizes a surrounding moving object based on a detection result of the external sensor” in claim 1 and “a step (a) of recognizing a surrounding moving object based on a detection result of an external sensor installed in a host vehicle” in claim 5 (the Examiner is interpreting the limitations as a moving object recognition unit 14 that recognizes a moving object (vehicle, cyclist, pedestrian) approaching the host vehicle 1 on the basis of information that can be recognized by the host vehicle 1 obtained from the detection result processing unit 11 in [0032] of the as-filed specification);
“a route storage unit that stores a route along which the host vehicle has moved based on vehicle information acquired by a vehicle sensor installed in the host vehicle” in claim 1 and “a step (c) of storing a route along which the host vehicle has moved based on vehicle information acquired by a vehicle sensor installed in the host vehicle” in claim 5 (the Examiner is interpreting the limitations as a route storage unit 15 that cumulatively stores sensor information (steering operation) obtained from the steering angle sensor 22, sensor information (vehicle speed) obtained from the wheel speed sensor 23, and sensor information (vehicle traveling direction) obtained from the shift sensor 24 in [0033] of the as-filed specification);
“an initial stop position determination unit that determines an initial position at which the host vehicle has stopped before starting, based on the detection result stored in the detection result storage unit” in claim 1 and “a step (d) of determining an initial position at which the host vehicle has stopped before starting based on the stored detection result” in claim 5 (the Examiner is interpreting the limitations as an initial stop position determination unit 13 that determines whether the autonomous movement control to the original position by the travel assistance described later is completed based on the surrounding environment information before the host vehicle 1 starts in [0031] of the as-filed specification);
“a vehicle control unit that stops the host vehicle based on a recognition result of the moving object recognition unit after the host vehicle starts from the initial position” in claims 1-3 and “a step (e) of stopping the host vehicle based on the recognition result after the host vehicle starts from the initial position” in claim 5 (the Examiner is interpreting the limitations as a vehicle control unit 16 that controls various ECUs to follow the route obtained from the route storage unit 15 until the initial stop position determination unit 13 determines that the movement to the initial position is completed after appropriately operating the automatic brake in [0034] of the as-filed specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (US 20210255614 A1; hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki discloses:
A travel assistance device (Fig. 2: parking support device 160) comprising:
a detection result storage unit (Fig. 2: memory 165) that stores a detection result of an external sensor installed in a host vehicle ([0056] “memory 165 stores..an image captured by the camera unit 131, a sensor value of the sonar unit 133”);
a moving object recognition unit (Fig. 2: detection unit 130) that recognizes a surrounding moving object based on a detection result of the external sensor ([0042] “The detection unit 130 includes one or a plurality of sensors configured to detect an obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and detect, for example, a distance between the detected obstacle 7 and the own-vehicle 5”);
a route storage unit (Fig. 2: memory 165) that stores a route along which the host vehicle has moved based on vehicle information acquired by a vehicle sensor installed in the host vehicle ([0060] “The map generation unit 173 generates map data in which the obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and the current position of the own-vehicle 5 are recorded in a local coordinate system. This map data is generated in the memory 165”);
an initial stop position determination unit (Fig. 2: parking support device 160) that determines an initial position (Figs. 3-4: start position P1/middle position P2) at which the host vehicle has stopped before starting, based on the detection result stored in the detection result storage unit ([0062] “the parking support device 160 generates map data by recording, to the acquired map data, the current position of the own-vehicle 5, which is input from the position acquisition unit 172, and the position of the obstacle 7, which is detected by the detection unit 130”); and
a vehicle control unit (Fig. 2: vehicle control unit 150) that stops the host vehicle based on a recognition result of the moving object recognition unit after the host vehicle starts from the initial position ([0072] “when the own-vehicle 5 has been caused to temporarily stop traveling at the middle position P2, when the own-vehicle 5 has reached the target parking position P3, or when the own-vehicle 5 is emergently stopped upon determination that the own-vehicle 5 cannot evade contact with the obstacle 7 by continuing traveling”), wherein
the detection result storage unit stores at least the initial position and the detection result on the route ([0060] “The map generation unit 173 generates map data in which the obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and the current position of the own-vehicle 5 are recorded in a local coordinate system. This map data is generated in the memory 165”), and
the vehicle control unit controls movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position based on a detection result of the external sensor at a current position of the host vehicle and a detection result of the external sensor stored in the detection result storage unit ([0078] “The determination unit 177 determines, based on an image captured by the camera unit 131 and sensor values of the sonar units 133, whether there is any obstacle 7 that would contact the own-vehicle 5 when the own-vehicle 5 returns on the travel path R1 in a direction to the start position P1 and the middle position P2.”, [0087] “starting control to return the position of the own-vehicle 5 to the start position P1 or the middle position P2”).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki discloses:
A travel assistance method comprising:
a step (a) of recognizing a surrounding moving object based on a detection result of an external sensor installed in a host vehicle ([0042] “The detection unit 130 includes one or a plurality of sensors configured to detect an obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and detect, for example, a distance between the detected obstacle 7 and the own-vehicle 5”);
a step (b) of storing a detection result of the external sensor ([0056] “memory 165 stores..an image captured by the camera unit 131, a sensor value of the sonar unit 133”);
a step (c) of storing a route along which the host vehicle has moved based on vehicle information acquired by a vehicle sensor installed in the host vehicle ([0060] “The map generation unit 173 generates map data in which the obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and the current position of the own-vehicle 5 are recorded in a local coordinate system. This map data is generated in the memory 165”);
a step (d) of determining an initial position (Figs. 3-4: start position P1) at which the host vehicle has stopped before starting based on the stored detection result ([0062] “the parking support device 160 generates map data by recording, to the acquired map data, the current position of the own-vehicle 5, which is input from the position acquisition unit 172, and the position of the obstacle 7, which is detected by the detection unit 130”); and
a step (e) of stopping the host vehicle based on the recognition result after the host vehicle starts from the initial position ([0072] “when the own-vehicle 5 has been caused to temporarily stop traveling at the middle position P2, when the own-vehicle 5 has reached the target parking position P3, or when the own-vehicle 5 is emergently stopped upon determination that the own-vehicle 5 cannot evade contact with the obstacle 7 by continuing traveling”), wherein
in the step (b), at least the initial position and the detection result in the route are stored ([0060] “The map generation unit 173 generates map data in which the obstacle 7 around the own-vehicle 5 and the current position of the own-vehicle 5 are recorded in a local coordinate system. This map data is generated in the memory 165”), and
in the step (e), movement on the route from a stop position at which the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position is controlled based on a detection result of the external sensor at a current position of the host vehicle and a stored detection result of the external sensor ([0078] When having determined that the own-vehicle 5 has emergently stopped, the determination unit 177 determines whether the own-vehicle 5 can travel from the emergency stop position P4 to the start position P1 and the middle position P2 on the travel path R1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Oguro et al. (US 20200114917 A1; hereinafter Oguro).
Regarding claim 2, Yamazaki discloses:
wherein
the vehicle control unit continues movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position ([0078] “The determination unit 177 determines, based on an image captured by the camera unit 131 and sensor values of the sonar units 133, whether there is any obstacle 7 that would contact the own-vehicle 5 when the own-vehicle 5 returns on the travel path R1 in a direction to the start position P1 and the middle position P2.”, [0087] “starting control to return the position of the own-vehicle 5 to the start position P1 or the middle position P2”).
Yamazaki does not specifically disclose:
wherein
the vehicle control unit continues movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position in a case where a matching degree between a detection result of the external sensor at a current position of the host vehicle and a detection result of the external sensor stored in the detection result storage unit exceeds a threshold.
However, Oguro discloses:
wherein
the vehicle control unit continues movement on the route ([0059] “whether to stop the vehicle”) in a case where a matching degree between a detection result of the external sensor at a current position of the host vehicle and a detection result of the external sensor stored in the detection result storage unit exceeds a threshold ([0059] “in accordance with the peripheral environment or change over time”).
Yamazaki and Oguro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle routing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki’s vehicle routing to further incorporate Oguro’s vehicle routing for the advantage of accounting dynamic changes indicating no change which results in safe vehicle navigation.
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki discloses:
wherein
the vehicle control unit stops movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position ([0078] “The determination unit 177 determines, based on an image captured by the camera unit 131 and sensor values of the sonar units 133, whether there is any obstacle 7 that would contact the own-vehicle 5 when the own-vehicle 5 returns on the travel path R1 in a direction to the start position P1 and the middle position P2.”, [0079] “traveling is impossible”).
Yamazaki does not specifically disclose:
wherein
the vehicle control unit stops movement on the route from a stop position where the host vehicle is stopped to the initial position in a case where a matching degree between a detection result of the external sensor at a current position of the host vehicle and a detection result of the external sensor stored in the detection result storage unit is less than a threshold.
However, Oguro discloses:
wherein
the vehicle control unit stops movement on the route ([0059] “whether to stop the vehicle”) in a case where a matching degree between a detection result of the external sensor at a current position of the host vehicle and a detection result of the external sensor stored in the detection result storage unit is less than a threshold ([0059] “in accordance with the peripheral environment or change over time”).
Yamazaki and Oguro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle routing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki’s vehicle routing to further incorporate Oguro’s vehicle routing for the advantage of accounting dynamic changes indicating a change which results in stopping vehicle navigation and collision prevention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki in view of Takahama et al. (US 20190025825 A1; hereinafter Takahama).
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki does not specifically disclose:
comprising:
a notification unit that issues a notification for prompting switching from automatic control by the host vehicle to manual control by a driver after the host vehicle stops at the stop position; and
a control change unit that switches from the automatic control by the host vehicle to the manual control by the driver based on a switching instruction by the driver.
However, Takahama discloses:
comprising:
a notification unit that issues a notification for prompting switching from automatic control by the host vehicle to manual control by a driver after the host vehicle stops at the stop position ([0063] “when being unable to continue the autonomous driving, the autonomous driving control apparatus stops the vehicle, and therefore can strongly prompt the driver to switch the running mode from the autonomous mode to the manual mode”); and
a control change unit that switches from the automatic control by the host vehicle to the manual control by the driver ([0060] “In step S20, the autonomous driving control controller 4 sets the running mode to the manual driving mode by the driving mode switching portion 4 a”) based on a switching instruction by the driver ([0059] “If the determination in step S19 is YES, the processing proceeds to step S20”).
Yamazaki and Takahama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle routing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki’s vehicle routing to further incorporate Takahama’s vehicle routing for the advantage of prompting the driver to take over when autonomous driving is difficult which results in safe and efficient vehicle navigation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571)272-7298. 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.
/PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665