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 .
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.
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: the "road type recognition unit" and the "control unit" in claim 1.
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. Namely, in light of paragraph [0036], they are interpreted as being implemented by a processor executing a program.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/850,220 in view of Takiguchi et al. (cited below). Claim 2 (and claim 1, upon which it is dependent) of the reference application teaches:
A mobile object control device for controlling a mobile object capable of moving both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway
(Claim 1) “A mobile object control device for controlling a mobile object capable of moving both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway”
a road type recognition unit configured to recognize 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
(Claim 1) “a road type recognition unit configured to recognize 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”
a control unit configured to limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves on the roadway to a first speed and limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves in the predetermined region to a second speed lower than the first speed
(Claim 1) “a control unit configured to limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves on the roadway to a first speed and limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves in the predetermined region to a second speed lower than the first speed”
wherein the road type recognition unit
(Claim 2) “wherein the road type recognition unit recognizes whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region on the basis of a roadway score”
The claims of the reference application are silent as to how the roadway score is determined; however, Takiguchi et al. teaches:
wherein the road type recognition unit adds 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 roadway score of the reference application with the calculation method of Takiguchi et al. Both the reference application and Takiguchi et al. are directed towards the use of a roadway score to determine a road type; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this could be done with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to refine the positioning accuracy beyond that offered by GPS (Takiguchi – [0005]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 9 and 10 are 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 claim 9: Claim 1, upon which claim 9 is dependent, 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, claim 9 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 as if the second threshold replaces the first threshold in determining where the mobile object is moving.
Regarding claim 10: Claim 10 fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 9 and is thus indefinite for at least 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) 1, 4, 5, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangeroni et al. (US 20190383627, cited in applicant IDS) in view of Takiguchi et al. (WO2019216386, cited in applicant IDS).
Claim 1.
Nangeroni et al. teaches:
A mobile object control device for controlling a mobile object capable of moving both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway
(Nangeroni – [0033]) “The motorized vehicle preferably includes one or more remote controllers, which can be operable to accept control inputs from user input devices”
a road type recognition unit configured to recognize 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.)”
a control unit configured to limit a speed of a case where the mobile object moves on the roadway to a first speed and limit 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 road type recognition unit adds 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]).
Claim 4.
The combination of Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nangeroni et al. further teaches:
wherein the plurality of first events include that a vehicle is moving in a region where the mobile object is located
(Nangeroni – [0121]) “Position type information can be determined based on… image recognition such as recognition of features associated with one or more path types (e.g., image recognition of bike lane markings, pedestrians on a sidewalk, automobiles on a roadway, etc.)”
Claim 5.
The combination of Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Nangeroni et al. further teaches:
wherein the plurality of first events include that there is a road surface marking on a road surface of a region where the mobile object is located
(Nangeroni – [0121]) “Position type information can be determined based on… image recognition such as recognition of features associated with one or more path types (e.g., image recognition of bike lane markings, pedestrians on a sidewalk, automobiles on a roadway, etc.)”
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pieper et al. (US 20220141450).
Claim 2.
The combination of Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Takiguchi et al. teaches assigning weights to different detected objects, neither Nangeroni et al. nor Takiguchi et al. explicitly teaches weighting a point value based on a degree of confidence. However, Pieper et al. teaches:
wherein the road type recognition unit weights a point value in accordance with a degree of confidence when each of the plurality of first events has been recognized and adds the weighted point value to the roadway score
(Pieper – [0237]) “a neural network that outputs a measure of confidence for each object detection. Such a confidence value may be interpreted as a probability, or as providing a relative ‘weight’ of each detection compared to other detections.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the object detections of Nangeroni et al. with the confidence weights of Pieper et al. One would have been motivated to do this to allow the system to screen out potential false positive detections in the sensor data (Pieper – [0237]).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tran (US 20210108926).
Claim 3.
The combination of Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While both Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. teach the detection of various objects, neither explicitly teaches detecting a static obstacle other than a vehicle not located inside an outer edge of a region where the mobile object is located. However, Tran teaches:
wherein the plurality of first events include that a static obstacle other than a vehicle is not located inside an outer edge of a region where the mobile object is located
(Tran – Abstract) “capturing a point cloud from a vehicle street view and converting the point cloud to a 3D model; applying a trained neural network to detect street signs, cross walks, obstacles, or bike lanes”
[Examiner’s Note: A street sign is a static obstacle other than a vehicle which is not located inside the outer edge of a roadway.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the object detections of Nangeroni et al. such that it includes the particular detections of Tran. One would have been motivated to do this in order to improve the capability of Nangeroni et al. to detect the surrounding environment.
Claim 6.
The combination of Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Nangeroni et al. teaches determining bike lane markings, Nangeroni et al. does not explicitly teach detecting a crosswalk. However, Tran teaches:
wherein the plurality of first events include that there is a crosswalk in a region where the mobile object is located
(Tran – Abstract) “capturing a point cloud from a vehicle street view and converting the point cloud to a 3D model; applying a trained neural network to detect street signs, cross walks, obstacles, or bike lanes”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 3.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mullen (US 20170116485).
Claim 7.
The combination of Nangeroni et al. and Takiguchi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. While Nangeroni et al. detects roadways and sidewalks, Nangeroni et al. does not explicitly teach detection of a curb. However, Mullen teaches:
wherein the plurality of first events include that a region where the mobile object is located is on a lower side with respect to a step
(Mullen – [0042]) “Curbs 210 may be detected based on color, height, location near a road, position between the road and other surface features, or the like.”
[Examiner’s Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that determination of a height of a curb would additionally result in determining whether a vehicle is above or below the curb.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the roadway detection of Nangeroni et al. such that it takes into account the curb detection of Mullen. One would have been motivated to do this in order to assist in determining a speed limit for the road (Mullen – [0015]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 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 claim 9: 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 claim 10: Claim 10 is dependent on claim 9 and would thus be potentially allowable for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
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