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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejections of 04/14/2026 have been withdrawn. Additionally, in light of the amendments to the claims, the claims are no longer interpreted under the provisions of 35 USC 112(f).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112 filed 07/ have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claims as amended are definite. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims would still be inclusive of a situation in which the roadway score is both greater than the first threshold (indicating a roadway) and less than the second threshold (indicating a predetermined region). In such a situation, it is not clear what determination would be made with respect to the detection. Therefore, the claim remains indefinite. The rejection below has been clarified by indicating the portion of the specification relied upon by the examiner for the purposes of examination.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection of amended claim 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments pertain to the subject matter contained in the amendments to claim 15; however, in light of the interpretation given to the claims, the newly added limitation is contingent on the detection of a second event. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim requires only those steps that must be performed. If the condition of detecting a second event is not met, then the newly added limitation is not performed, and thus is not required for the broadest reasonable limitation of the claim.
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 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.
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 16: The claim recites that a mobile object is moving on a roadway when a roadway score is greater than or equal to a first threshold value. However, the claim further recites that the mobile object is moving in a predetermined region (which is not the roadway) when the roadway score is less than or equal to a second threshold value which is greater than the first threshold value. It is not clear what determination is made in a situation where the roadway score is above the first threshold but below the second threshold. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted, in light of Fig. 7, as if the second threshold replaces the first threshold in determining where the mobile object is moving in a situation wherein a second event has been recognized (i.e., whether the first or second threshold is used is contingent on the presence of one or more second events).
Regarding claims 2-7 and 10: The claims fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are thus indefinite for the same reasons.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangeroni et al. (US 20190383627, previously cited) in view of Takiguchi et al. (WO2019216386, previously cited).
Claim 15.
Nangeroni et al. teaches:
recognizing, by a computer for controlling a mobile object capable of moving on both a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway, whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region on the basis of an output of an external environment detection device configured to detect an external situation of the mobile object
(Nangeroni – [0064]) “The vehicle operation parameters can include: … location type and/or classification of the path on which the vehicle is operating, such as the roadway type (e.g., residential road, multi-lane road, highway, bike lane, bike path, sidewalk, pedestrian path, unpaved trail, not a designated roadway or path, etc.)”
limiting, by the computer, a speed of a case where the mobile object moves on the roadway to a first speed and limiting a speed of a case where the mobile object moves in the predetermined region to a second speed lower than the first speed
(Nangeroni – [0069]) “when the vehicle is operating on a roadway type other than the permitted roadway types (e.g., undesired roadway type, such as sidewalk, pedestrian path, highway, not a designated roadway or path, etc.), then the vehicle operation responses can restrict vehicle operation parameters, such as to limit the vehicle’s maximum speed to an amount less than the standard maximum speed”
Nangeroni et al. does not explicitly teach determining a roadway score; however, Takiguchi et al. teaches:
wherein the recognizing includes adding a point value to a roadway score every time each of a plurality of first events indicating that the mobile object is moving on the roadway is recognized on the basis of the output of the external environment detection device and recognizes that the mobile object is moving on the roadway when the roadway score is greater than or equal to a first threshold value
(Takiguchi – [0024]) “the road type determination unit 50 assigns predetermined points (increased or decreased points) when the external environment recognition unit 20 detects a pedestrian, when it detects a toll gate, etc. Then, if the total points (evaluation points) exceed a predetermined number of points, it is determined that the road the vehicle is currently on is a highway.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the vehicle operation parameters of Nangeroni et al. such that the roadway type is determined based on the point value of Takiguchi et al. Nangeroni et al. teaches general determination of a roadway type without a specific method and Takiguchi et al. teaches a specific method of determining a roadway type; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because GPS alone is insufficiently accurate to determine a road type based on a determined vehicle position (Takiguchi – [0005]).
The limitation of recognizing any one of one or more second events indicating that the mobile object is moving in the predetermined region on the basis of the output of the external environment detection device and recognizing that the mobile object is moving in the predetermined region when the roadway score is less than a second threshold value is interpreted as a limitation which is contingent upon the recognizing of one or more second events, as discussed above with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim requires only steps that must be performed (MPEP 2111.04), and the claim does not require that a second event be detected (if one is not detected, then the first threshold is used). Therefore, it is not necessary for the prior art to teach this limitation in order to teach the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 1 and 16: While the closest available art, Takiguchi et al., teaches a first set of detections which result in adding to the roadway score and a second set of detections which result in subtracting from the roadway score, Takiguchi et al. does not explicitly teach making a determination of moving in the roadway or the predetermined region based on a second threshold larger than the first threshold value.
Regarding claims 2-7: The claims are dependent on potentially allowable claim 1 and would thus be potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights