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.
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: “road type recognition unit” in claims 1-14.
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. Corresponding structure for the claimed “road type recognition unit” is provided in paragraph [0038] of the specification as-filed.
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 § 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “a storage medium storing a program”. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this storage medium may be a transitory form of a signal transmission, such as a carrier wave or a signal per se. Transitory forms of signal transmission are not directed to any of the statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.03).
Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “a non-transitory storage medium” or the like.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abhyanker (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0136414 A1) in view of Tran (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0108926 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abhyanker teaches a control device (computer system 200) for a mobile object (autonomous neighborhood vehicle 100) that is able to move in both a roadway and a sidewalk (see [0109]-[0110]), the control device comprising:
a road type recognition unit configured to recognize whether a region of interest is a roadway or a sidewalk and detected by a detection device that detects an external situation of the mobile object (see [0109]-[0110]); and
a control unit configured to control the mobile object based on a result of the recognition of the road type recognition unit (see [0109]-[0110]).
Abhyanker does not expressly teach the region of interest is recognized as a roadway or a sidewalk based on a bicycle mark used for guiding a passage of a bicycle.
Tran also generally teaches an autonomous mobile object (see Abstract). Tran teaches an equipped optical sensor, LiDAR , or RADAR is used to detect a bike lane and an associated marking for the bike lane (see [0014], [0066]-[0067], and [0074]-[0114]). Tran teaches the recognition of the bike lane, along with associated markings and signage, is used in part to determine a vehicular roadway and a sidewalk present in the operating environment (see [0074]-[0114] and [0121]-[0130]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Abhyanker such that the recognition of a roadway or a sidewalk is based on a bicycle mark present in a bike lane, in view of Tran, as Tran teaches this is an effective manner in segmenting a detected environment to isolate a sidewalk and a vehicular roadway to better guide the autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran further teaches the road type recognition unit recognizes whether the region of interest is a roadway or a sidewalk based on the bicycle mark and a direction of the bicycle mark (see [0014], [0066]-[0067], [0074]-[0114], and [0121]-[0130] of Tran).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran further teaches the road type recognition unit recognizes whether the region of interest is a roadway or a sidewalk based on the bicycle mark and a sign provided in vicinity of the bicycle mark (see [0014], [0066]-[0067], [0074]-[0114], and [0121]-[0130] of Tran).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran further teaches the road type recognition unit recognizes whether the region of interest is a roadway or a sidewalk based on the bicycle mark and widths of a first road on which the bicycle mark is displayed and a second road adjacent to the first road (see [0014], [0066]-[0067], [0074]-[0114], and [0121]-[0130] of Tran).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran does not expressly teach the road type recognition unit recognizes a road with a narrow width between the first and second roads as a sidewalk and recognizes a road with a broad width between the first and second roads as a roadway.
However, as noted above in the rejection of claim 4, Tran teaches the use of a minimum lane width to detect a roadway lane being separated from a sidewalk via a bike lane and transition zone (see [0124]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by the combination of Abhyanker and Tran such that the road type recognition unit recognizes a road with a narrow width between the first and second roads as a sidewalk and recognizes a road with a broad width between the first and second roads as a roadway, in view of Tran, as it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art that sidewalks are typically more narrow than roadway lanes and as Tran teaches the system is able to identify roadway lanes based on a width of the lane.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran further teaches the bicycle mark is disposed on a first road and a boundary object for distinguishing the first road from a second road adjacent to the first road is adjacent to the bicycle mark, the road type recognition unit recognizes whether the second road is a roadway or a sidewalk based on one or both of presence or absence of a vehicle on the first and second roads and the width of the first road and the width of the second road (see [0106] and [0121]-[0124] of Tran).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran further teaches the boundary object is a planting (see [0124] of Tran).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran further teaches the road type recognition unit recognizes a road on which there is no vehicle between the first and second roads as a sidewalk (see [0124] of Tran).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran does not expressly teach the road type recognition unit recognizes a road on which the width is narrow width between the first and second roads as a sidewalk.
However, as noted above in the rejection of claims 4 and 5, Tran teaches the use of a minimum lane width to detect a roadway lane being separated from a sidewalk via a bike lane and transition zone (see [0124]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by the combination of Abhyanker and Tran such that the road type recognition unit recognizes a road on which the width is narrow width between the first and second roads as a sidewalk, in view of Tran, as it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art that sidewalks are typically more narrow than roadway lanes and as Tran teaches the system is able to identify roadway lanes based on a width of the lane.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran, as applied to claim 9 above, further teaches the road type recognition unit identifies a road of which the width is narrow between the first and second roads and recognizes the identified road as a sidewalk when there is no vehicle on the identified road (see [0124] of Tran and the rejection of claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran further teaches the road type recognition unit recognizes whether the region of interest is a roadway or a sidewalk based on the bicycle mark, a direction of the bicycle mark, widths of right and left roads of the bicycle mark, and a sign provided in vicinity of the bicycle mark (see [0014], [0066]-[0067], [0074]-[0114], and [0121]-[0130] of Tran).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran further discloses the road type recognition unit recognizes whether the region of interest is a roadway or a sidewalk based on the bicycle mark and a direction of the bicycle mark when the direction of the bicycle mark is recognizable, and recognizes whether the region of the interest is a roadway or a sidewalk based on one or both of the bicycle mark and widths of right and left roads of the bicycle marks and a sign provided in vicinity of the bicycle mark when the direction of the bicycle mark is not recognizable (see [0014], [0066]-[0067], [0074]-[0114], and [0121]-[0130] of Tran; note that the inclusion of the bicycle mark and direction is not necessary in the determination when one is not recognized).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches a control method for a mobile object (autonomous neighborhood vehicle 100 of Abhyanker) in a control device (computer system 200 of Abhyanker) for a mobile object that is able to move in both a roadway and a sidewalk (see [0109]-[0110] of Abhyanker), the method comprising:
recognizing whether a region of interest is a roadway or a sidewalk based on a bicycle mark used for guiding a passage of a bicycle and detected by a detection device that detects an external situation of the mobile object (see [0109]-[0110] of Abhyanker and [0014], [0066]-[0067], [0074]-[0114], and [0121]-[0130] of Tran); and
controlling the mobile object based on a result of the recognition (see [0109]-[0110] of Abhyanker).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches a storage medium storing a program causing a control device (computer system 200 of Abhyanker) for a mobile object (autonomous neighborhood vehicle 100 of Abhyanker) that is able to move in both a roadway and a sidewalk (see [0109]-[0110] of Abhyanker) to perform:
recognizing whether a region of interest is a roadway or a sidewalk based on a bicycle mark used for guiding a passage of a bicycle and detected by a detection device that detects an external situation of the mobile object (see [0109]-[0110] of Abhyanker and [0014], [0066]-[0067], [0074]-[0114], and [0121]-[0130] of Tran); and
controlling the mobile object based on a result of the recognition (see [0109]-[0110] of Abhyanker).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Abhyanker and Tran, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okai (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0245223 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Abhyanker and Tran, as applied to claim 1 above, does not expressly teach the control unit controls the mobile object in a roadway mode for traveling on a roadway when the mobile object is located on a road recognized as a roadway by the road type recognition unit, and controls the mobile object in a sidewalk mode for traveling on a sidewalk when the mobile object is located on a road recognized as a sidewalk by the road type recognition unit.
Okai also generally teaches a system for operating a mobile object that is capable of being operated on both a roadway and a sidewalk (see Abstract and [0329]). Okai teaches the mobility 5001 has a set maximum speed according to the roadway on which it is operating, such that a maximum speed while operating on a sidewalk is lower than a set maximum speed while operating on a roadway (see [0329]).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by the combination of Abhyanker and Tran such that the control unit controls the mobile object in a roadway mode for traveling on a roadway when the mobile object is located on a road recognized as a roadway by the road type recognition unit, and controls the mobile object in a sidewalk mode for traveling on a sidewalk when the mobile object is located on a road recognized as a sidewalk by the road type recognition unit, by limiting the speed to a lower maximum speed value in the case of operating on the sidewalk as compared to while operating on the roadway, in view of Okai, as Okai teaches this allows the vehicle to operate more safely on a sidewalk where pedestrians may be present.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Abhyanker, Tran, and Okai, as applied to claim 13 above, further teaches the control unit limits an upper limit speed during traveling of the mobile object to a first speed when the mobile object is located on a road recognized as a roadway by the road type recognition unit, and limits an upper limit speed during traveling of the mobile object to a second speed less than the first speed when the mobile object is located on a road recognized as a sidewalk by the road type recognition unit (see [0329] of Okai and the rejection of claim 13 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667