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 11: A method for adjusting an operating state of a driver assistance system, wherein the driver assistance system is configured to control a lateral guidance of a motor vehicle based on image data recorded using a camera of the motor vehicle, the method comprising:
determining weather conditions in the surroundings of the motor vehicle based on the image data;
recognizing a lane marking based on the image data;
determining a length of the recognized lane marking; and
adjusting the operating state of the driver assistance system based on the determined weather conditions and the determined length of the recognized lane marking.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 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 11 is directed to a method for adjusting an operating state.. (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A method for adjusting an operating state of a driver assistance system, wherein the driver assistance system is configured to control a lateral guidance of a motor vehicle based on image data recorded using a camera of the motor vehicle, the method comprising:
determining weather conditions in the surroundings of the motor vehicle based on the image data;
recognizing a lane marking based on the image data;[mental process/step]
determining a length of the recognized lane marking; and
adjusting the operating state of the driver assistance system based on the determined weather conditions and the determined length of the recognized lane marking.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “recognizing…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method for adjusting an operating state of a driver assistance system, wherein the driver assistance system is configured to control a lateral guidance of a motor vehicle based on image data recorded using a camera of the motor vehicle, the method comprising:
determining weather conditions in the surroundings of the motor vehicle based on the image data;[pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]
recognizing a lane marking based on the image data;[mental process/step]
determining a length of the recognized lane marking; [mental process/step] and
adjusting the operating state of the driver assistance system based on the determined weather conditions and the determined length of the recognized lane marking.[post-solution activity result of the mental process]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “determining weather conditions…. Adjusting the operating state..” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (driver assistance system) to perform the process. In particular, the determining steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the recognizing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The adjusting results step (i.e. as a general means of adjusting the operating state of the driver assistance system from the recognizing step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “vehicle controller/ driver assistance system” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the recognizing… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “determining weather conditions in the surroundings…,” “determining a length of lane marking…,” and “adjusting…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) [12-19] do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application [adjustment of the operating state of the driver assistance does not contribute to practical application]. Therefore, dependent claims [12-19] are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [claim 11].
Therefore, claim(s) [11-19] is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (U.S. Pub No. 20200094837) in view of Bosch (DE 10 2011 088134).
Regarding claim 11, Kato discloses a method for adjusting an operating state of a driver assistance system (See paragraph 0018 “first ‘l’ second traveling control”) which is designed to control the lateral guidance of a motor vehicle on the basis of image data acquired by means of a camera (See paragraph 0043, 0046, 0122) of the motor vehicle (See paragraph 0018, “first traveling control for causing the host vehicle to travel along a traveling route based on the recognized lane marking”), the method comprising:
Determining weather conditions in the surroundings of the motor vehicle (See paragraph 0058),
Recognizing a lane marking on the basis of the image data (See paragraph 0122),
Determining a length of the recognized lane marking (See paragraph 0011, 0105; Fig.5; paragraph 0069-0072), and adjusting the operating state of the driver assistance system on the basis of the determined weather conditions (See paragraph 0058) and the determined length of the recognized lane marking (See paragraph 0008, 0012; Fig.6; paragraph 0079, 0105; claims 1 and 5).
Though Kato discloses in Fig. 1 a camera, radar and lidar as input data, paragraph 0042-0045,
Kato does not specifically disclose that the weather conditions in the surroundings of the motor vehicle are determined on the basis of the image data.
In an analogous art, Bosch (DE 10 2011 088134) disclose weather conditions in the surroundings of the motor vehicle are determined on the basis of the image data (See paragraphs 2, 5, 11, 44, 46). It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to determine weather conditions on the basis of the image data as it is well known to one of ordinary skill to use sensors for the image data.
Regarding claims 17, 18, 19, Kato discloses a corresponding system (paragraph 0008) and a corresponding computer program (See Fig.12; paragraph 0018) and a corresponding computer-readable medium (See paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 12, Kato discloses at paragraph 0008 automatic switching to the second control mode corresponds to a deactivation and an inhibition of the first mode, which corresponds to the driver assistance system of lateral guidance according to a recognized lane marking.
Regarding claim 13, Kato discloses at paragraphs 0061 and 0105; in both cases, the lateral guidance according to a recognized lane marking is interrupted, even when both conditions are met.
Regarding claims 14-15, Kato discloses at paragraph 0008 controlling the lateral guidance of the motor vehicle by means of the driver assistance system based on the image data in dependence on the adjusted operating state of the driver assistance system; and wherein the lateral guidance of the motor vehicle is controlled based on a course of the recognized lane marking.
Regarding claim 16, Kato discloses wherein the determination of the weather conditions and/or the recognition and/or determination of the length of the lane marking is carried out by the camera. (See Figs. 5-6; an integration of recognition logics into a camera cannot be considered inventive in light of the well-known intelligent sensor system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kramadhari et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12014554) disclose a method and system for estimating road lane geometry includes a camera-estimated lane segment, for estimating lane geometry based on camera detection of road markings and a leading-vehicle-estimated lane segment, for estimating lane geometry based on traces of at least one leading vehicle. Estimated road geometry is obtained from a combination of the camera-estimated lane segment and the leading-vehicle-estimated lane segment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 EST.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights