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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled boxes shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 18 is directed to a computer program, i.e. “software per se”. “Software per se”, when claimed without any structural limitations, does not have a physical or tangible form. Therefore, it does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and is ineligible under 35 USC 101. see MPEP 2106.03. Additionally, Claim 18 is directed toward a computer readable medium. The claim does not recite, and the specification does not define, that the computer readable medium is limited to non-transitory embodiments. A claim encompassing both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, such as applicant’s claimed computer readable medium, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”).
If support is found within the specification, Applicant is advised to amend the claim(s) to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, performs: [the claimed functions]”, or equivalent language. see MPEP 2106.03 (I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium would comprise an article of manufacture and thus fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under 35 USC §101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shieh (U.S. Patent No. 11572068; hereinafter Shieh).
Regarding claim 11, Shieh teaches a method for adjusting a target distance between a motor vehicle and a preceding vehicle traveling in front, comprising: activating an adaptive cruise control to adjust the target distance (Shieh: Col. 3, lines 8-11; i.e., the system can advantageously autonomously control the following vehicle to remain the optimal distance behind the leading vehicle during autonomous driving or during adaptive cruise control mode);
determining distance information characterizing the distance between the motor vehicle and the preceding vehicle (Shieh: Col. 7, lines 5-8; i.e., the data from the image sensor 122 may further be used to determine a current distance between the main body 109 and the leading vehicle);
determining vehicle type information characterizing a vehicle type of the preceding vehicle (Shieh: Col. 9, lines 59-62; i.e., the method 300 may begin in block 302 in which various sensors of the vehicle may detect data. Such data may include data usable to identify a shape or type of the leading vehicle);
determining a correction distance on the basis of the distance information and the vehicle type information (Shieh: Col. 10, lines 26-39; i.e., the ECU may determine an optimal distance from the present vehicle to the leading vehicle based on the detected data and the stored data… the ECU may access the lookup table for the determined shape or type of the leading vehicle and may compare a portion of the detected and received data to the lookup table to determine the optimal distance);
and adjusting the target distance on the basis of the correction distance (Shieh: Col. 11, lines 29-34; i.e., In block 310, the ECU may control a power source of the vehicle to cause the following vehicle to remain within a predetermined amount of the optimal distance from the leading vehicles. The ECU may perform this operation when the vehicle is operating in … an adaptive cruise control state).
Regarding claim 12, Shieh teaches the method according to claim 11. Shieh further teaches wherein the target distance is adjusted such that the target distance is increased if the vehicle type of the preceding vehicle is a utility vehicle (Shieh: Col. 5, lines 45-49; i.e., the ECU may control the output device to output a representation of the present vehicle and the leading vehicle and indicate whether the present vehicle should be closer or farther from the leading vehicle; as displayed in Figure 4B, a light duty truck has a larger length and area than a sedan, resulting in a longer turbulent wake and an increased recommended distance for the host vehicle).
Regarding claim 13, Shieh teaches the method according to claim 11. Shieh further teaches wherein the determination of the correction distance and/or the adjustment of the target distance is dependent on a speed of the motor vehicle (Shieh: Col. 13, lines 49-50; i.e., the optimal distance may vary based on the speed).
Regarding claim 17, Shieh teaches the method according to claim 11. Shieh further teaches wherein the distance information is determined by a vehicle-side radar device (Shieh: Col. 6, lines 59-61; i.e., the image sensor 122 may include four or more radar detectors to detect radar data on all four sides of the main body; Col. 7, lines 5-8; i.e., the data from the image sensor 122 may further be used to determine a current distance between the main body 109 and the leading vehicle)
and the vehicle type information is determined by a vehicle-side camera device (Shieh: Col. 6, lines 61-63; i.e., The image sensor 122 may also or instead include a first camera to detect image data in a forward direction; Col. 6, line 66 – Col. 7, line 3; i.e., The data from the image sensor 122 may include information corresponding to a shape of a leading vehicle 103. For example, the shape may include … a specific type of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 18, Shieh teaches the method according to claim 11. Shieh further teaches a computer program and/or computer-readable medium, comprising commands which, upon the execution of the program or the commands by a computer, prompt it to carry out the method and/or the steps of the method of claim 11 (Shieh: Col. 5, lines 40-45; i.e., The memory 104 may include any non-transitory memory and may store data usable by the ECU 102. For example, the memory 104 may store instructions usable by the ECU 102 to drive autonomously (which may include fully autonomous driving or partial autonomous driving such as adaptive cruise control)).
Regarding claim 19, Shieh teaches the method according to claim 11. Shieh further teaches a data processing device for an automated motor vehicle, wherein the data processing device is configured to carry out the method of claim 11 (Shieh: Col. 5, lines 10-11; i.e., The ECU 102 may be coupled to each of the components of the vehicle 100 and may include one or more processors).
Regarding claim 20, Shieh teaches the method according to claim 19. Shieh further teaches a motor vehicle, comprising the data processing device of claim 19 (Shieh: Col. 4, line 65; i.e., the vehicle 100 (or system 101) may include an ECU 102).
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.
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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shieh, and further in view of Horiguchi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0086771; hereinafter Horiguchi).
Regarding claim 14, Shieh teaches the method according to claim 13, but does not explicitly teach wherein the determination of the correction distance and/or the adjustment of the target distance is activated above an upper speed threshold and is deactivated below a lower speed threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Horiguchi teaches wherein the determination of the correction distance and/or the adjustment of the target distance is activated above an upper speed threshold and is deactivated below a lower speed threshold (Horiguchi: Par. 130; i.e., The ACC activation resume condition herein means a pre-set condition for resuming the ACC activation; Par. 226; i.e., Whether or not the vehicle speed V of the subject vehicle exceeds a threshold may be added to the ACC activation resume condition; the adjustment of the target distance (ACC activation) is dependent on the speed of the vehicle exceeding a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shieh to have further incorporated wherein the determination of the correction distance and/or the adjustment of the target distance is activated above an upper speed threshold and is deactivated below a lower speed threshold, as taught by Horiguchi. Doing so would prevent the driver from feeling a sense of discomfort during activation and deactivation of the ACC (Horiguchi: Par. 186; i.e., a sense of discomfort is prevented from being felt by the driver in a braking operation resulting from a change in braking performance).
Regarding claim 15, Shieh teaches the method according to claim 11, but does not explicitly teach wherein the determination of the correction distance and/or the adjustment of the target distance is dependent on a number of lanes of a road travelled by the motor vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Horiguchi teaches wherein the determination of the correction distance and/or the adjustment of the target distance is dependent on a number of lanes of a road travelled by the motor vehicle (Horiguchi: Par. 145; i.e., In step S34, the ACC-ECU 41 sets an ACC activation resume condition based on Case 5 (the number of lanes of the travel road is plural); Par. 146; i.e., In step S35, meanwhile, the ACC-ECU 41 sets an ACC activation resume condition based on Case 6 (the number of lanes of the travel road is single); the adjustment of the target distance (ACC activation) is dependent on the number of lanes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Shieh to have further incorporated wherein the determination of the correction distance and/or the adjustment of the target distance is dependent on a number of lanes of a road travelled by the motor vehicle, as taught by Horiguchi. Doing so would prevent the driver from feeling a sense of discomfort during activation and deactivation of the ACC (Horiguchi: Par. 186; i.e., a sense of discomfort is prevented from being felt by the driver in a braking operation resulting from a change in braking performance).
Regarding claim 16, Shieh in view of Horiguchi teaches the method according to claim 15. Horiguchi further teaches wherein the determination of the correction distance and/or the adjustment of the target distance is deactivated on a road having multiple lanes (Horiguchi: Par. 195; i.e., the third evaluation threshold EV11z1 according to the variation of the first example is set to a value nearer High Evaluation, compared to the first evaluation threshold EV1z1. This is because, in the travel scene according to the variation of the first example … a smooth travel of the subject vehicle is more likely to be obstructed, to thereby have a larger brake load, compared to the travel scene according to the first example in which a vehicle ahead is present in the forward direction on the lane same as that of the subject vehicle; as displayed in Figure 4A, the activation condition may be met for a singular lane road but not for a multi-lane road).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of adjusting intervehicle distance includes Okuda et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0291868), Pandy (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0082591), Braeuchle et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0106364), and Gluck et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0168756).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665