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 .
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 contains 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 limitations are: “acquisition module,” “calculation module,” and “adjustment module”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abari et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Abari”) (US 11,686,836 B2) and in view of Cahoon et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Cahoon”) (US 12,254,249 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, Abari discloses a control device of an autonomous vehicle (100), which includes a processor and memory, for controlling the autonomous vehicle, comprising: multiple sensors for detecting and identifying objects which includes vehicles, pedestrians, road signs, etc. (see column 4, line 53 through column 5, line 60; column 7, line 38 through column 8, line 3), wherein the state information of the objects includes motion information (e.g., direction and speed) and position information of the object (see Fig. 1; column 6, line 61 through column 7, line 10). Abari further teaches that the autonomous vehicle’s speed can be adjusted based on the relation to other objects in the surroundings (see column 5, lines 34-60).
Abari is merely missing to disclose the features of “determining, based on state information of each of the moving objects, a temporary restricted passage space corresponding to each moving object; and adjusting, based on a temporary restricted passage space corresponding to each of all other moving objects, traveling of the current autonomous driving vehicle.”
Cahoon discloses a control system and method of controlling motion of autonomous vehicle based on the information of the objects in the environment of the autonomous vehicle. The system is configured to receive sensor data from a variety of sensors (108), and a sensor data processor (114) that processes the sensor data (see column 10, lines 8-57) to identify bounding box as well other information of the objects (see column 10, line 33 through column 11, line38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device of Abari with the teachings as taught by Cahoon to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that the autonomous vehicle moving safely in areas where they interact with unpredictable moving objects by avoiding sudden emergency stops and optimizing travel paths.
Regarding claim 16, Abari discloses a control device of an autonomous vehicle for controlling the autonomous vehicle, comprising: multiple sensors for detecting and identifying objects which includes vehicles, pedestrians, road signs, etc. (see column 4, line 53 through column 5, line 12), wherein the state information of the objects includes motion information (e.g., direction and speed) and position information of the object (see Fig. 1; column 6, line 61 through column 7, line 10). Abari further teaches that the autonomous vehicle’s speed can be adjusted based on the relation to other objects in the surroundings (see column 5, lines 34-60).
Abari is merely missing to disclose the features of “determining, based on state information of each of the moving objects, a temporary restricted passage space corresponding to each moving object; and adjusting, based on a temporary restricted passage space corresponding to each of all other moving objects, traveling of the current autonomous driving vehicle.”
Cahoon discloses a control system and method of controlling motion of autonomous vehicle based on the information of the objects in the environment of the autonomous vehicle. The system is configured to receive sensor data from a variety of sensors (108), and a sensor data processor (114) that processes the sensor data (column 10, lines 8-57) to identify bounding box as well other information of the objects (column 10, line 33 through column 11, line38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control device of Abari with the teachings as taught by Toba to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of ensuring that the autonomous vehicle moving safely in areas where they interact with unpredictable moving objects by avoiding sudden emergency stops and optimizing travel paths.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abari (US 11,686,836 B2), Cahoon (US 12,254,249 B1), and further in view of Zeng et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Zeng”) (US 9,255,988 B2).
Neither Abari nor Cahoon discloses or even suggests the limitations of “acquiring position information of the moving object at different times and a corresponding time; and determining the motion information of the moving object based on the position information of the moving object and the corresponding time that are acquired.”
Zeng discloses an object fusion system of multiple radar imaging sensors, comprising: a vehicle (12) that consists of a sensing system (10) for detecting objects around the vehicle (12) (Fig. 1; column 2, lines 10-20), wherein the system (10) includes a variety of sensing devices (14-20) which includes the synthetic aperture radar (SAR) for detecting the position of the objects at different time when the host vehicle (12) is moving (column 2, line 61 through column 3, line 8), and the motion of moving objects is determined based on the position information of the moving objects and the corresponding time (see 4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b; column 4, lines 23-62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Abari and Cahoon with the teachings as taught by Zeng to arrive at the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of distinguishing between station and dynamic objects with minimal delay in the system as well as predicting maneuvers of the objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
It is found none of the prior art has been found discloses or even suggests all the limitations recited in claims 3, 6-8, 13, and 14. For example, Zeng discloses an object fusion system of multiple radar imaging sensors in which the motion of moving objects is determined based on the position information of the moving objects and the corresponding time. However, Zeng fails to discloses “acquiring position information of the moving object and a corresponding time at predetermined time intervals, and determining the motion information of the moving object based on position information D.sub.k of the moving object and a corresponding time T.sub.k that are acquired at a current time, and position information D.sub.k−1 of the moving object and a corresponding time T.sub.k−1 that were acquired last time.” The combination of Abari, Cahoon, and Zeng also fails to disclose or even suggest the limitations recited in claims 6-8, 13, and 14.
For at least the reason set forth herein above, claims 3, and 5-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure. The following patent documents are cited in the PTO-892 to further show the state of the art in general: US 2020/0339196 A1 by Jang et al. which discloses an apparatus and method for parking assistance. In Jang, the apparatus includes at least one camera installed in a vehicle, wherein the camera captures images surrounding the vehicles, and a control unit coupled to the camera analyzes the images in order to recognize a space and object in a parking lot; US 2022/0297680 A1 by Nakanishi et al. which discloses a mobile object control system/method of controlling a mobile object that moves in a direction of a roadway; US 2020/0247401 A1 by Yao et al. which discloses a vehicle system/method for controlling the operation of the vehicle based on a tracking target in lidar point cloud data; WO-2020/244738-A1 by Bandi et al. which discloses an autonomous vehicle control system and method for providing motion control of the autonomous vehicle; EP-3330827-A1 by Cronin et al. which discloses an autonomous driving vehicle and control of autonomous driving vehicle.
Conclusions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan C To whose telephone number is (571) 272-6985. The examiner can normally be reached on from 6:00AM to 2:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Vivek D Koppikar, can be reached on (571) 272-5109.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN C TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667