DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action on the Merits and is directed towards claims 1-14 as originally amended and/or filed on 12/26/2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Priority is claimed as set forth below, accordingly the earliest effective filing date is 06/30/2022 (20220630).
The present application, effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
This application claims priority to and is a 371 of PCT/IB2023/056250 filed on 06/16/2023, which claims priority to Japanese application No. 2022-106713, filed on 06/30/2022 (20220630).
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609 [R-07.2022], Applicant's 12/26/2024 submission(s) of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)(s) is/are acknowledged by the Examiner and the reference(s) cited therein has/have been considered in the examination of the claim(s) now pending. A copy of the submitted IDS(s) initialed and dated by the Examiner is/are attached to the instant Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2020232801A1 to Kim et. al (hereinafter Kim is cited in the 12/26/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1 Kim teaches in for example the Figure(s) reproduced immediately below:
PNG
media_image1.png
653
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
460
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and associated descriptive texts an information processing apparatus (18) that performs information processing related to a position of a leaning vehicle (10) (given the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) see Figures 1 and 2 and associated descriptive texts wherein a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art (POSITA) would understand that controller 34 connotes an information processing apparatus and motorcycles, connote a leaning vehicle as claimed and explained in for example only paras:
“[0029] In various embodiments, the vehicle 10 is an autonomous vehicle and the localization system 100 is incorporated into the autonomous vehicle 10 (hereinafter referred to as the autonomous vehicle 10). The autonomous vehicle 10 is, for example, a vehicle that is automatically controlled to carry passengers from one location to another. The vehicle 10 is depicted in the illustrated embodiment as a passenger car, but it should be appreciated that any other vehicle including motorcycles, trucks, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), recreational vehicles (RVs), marine vessels, aircraft, or simply robots, etc., can also be used. In an exemplary embodiment, the autonomous vehicle 10 is a so-called Level Four or Level Five automation system. A Level Four system indicates “high automation”, referring to the driving mode-specific performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task, even if a human driver does not respond appropriately to a request to intervene. A Level Five system indicates “full automation”, referring to the full-time performance by an automated driving system of all aspects of the dynamic driving task under all roadway and environmental conditions that can be managed by a human driver. As can be appreciated, in various embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 10 can be any level of automation.
[0030] As shown, the autonomous vehicle 10 generally includes a propulsion system 20, a transmission system 22, a steering system 24, a brake system 26, a sensor system 28, an actuator system 30, at least one data storage device 32, at least one controller 34, and a communication system 36. The propulsion system 20 may, in various embodiments, include an internal combustion engine, an electric machine such as a traction motor, and/or a fuel cell propulsion system. The transmission system 22 is configured to transmit power from the propulsion system 20 to the vehicle wheels 16-18 according to selectable speed ratios. According to various embodiments, the transmission system 22 may include a step-ratio automatic transmission, a continuously-variable transmission, or other appropriate transmission. The brake system 26 is configured to provide braking torque to the vehicle wheels 16-18. The brake system 26 may, in various embodiments, include friction brakes, brake by wire, a regenerative braking system such as an electric machine, and/or other appropriate braking systems. The steering system 24 influences a position of the of the vehicle wheels 16-18. While depicted as including a steering wheel for illustrative purposes, in some embodiments contemplated within the scope of the present disclosure, the steering system 24 may not include a steering wheel.”),
the information processing apparatus comprising a computer configured to:
acquire surrounding environment information that is information related to an environment in a surrounding of the leaning vehicle (10) based on an output from a radar (14) mounted to the leaning vehicle (10) (as shown in Fig. 2 and explained in for example para:
“[0031] The sensor system 28 includes one or more sensing devices 40a-40n that sense observable conditions of the exterior environment and/or the interior environment of the autonomous vehicle 10. The sensing devices 40a-40n can include, but are not limited to, radars, lidars, global positioning systems, optical cameras, thermal cameras, ultrasonic sensors, inertial measurement units, and/or other sensors. In various embodiments, the sensing devices 40a-40n include one or more image sensors that generate image sensor data that is used by the localization system 100.”);
and specify an absolute position of the leaning vehicle (10) based on the surrounding environment information (as shown in para:
“[0037] In various embodiments, one or more instructions of the controller 34 are embodied in the mapping and localization system 100 and, when executed by the processor 44, process data from the radars to determine a map of the environment; and determines the vehicle location based on the map of the environment. For example, the mapping and localization system 100 generates a highly accurate grid (image) map, identifying permanent objects in the environment. Each cell (pixel) in the grid map, for example, is mapped to a Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system and represents discretized environment with radar perceived property. The radar grid map is then used to localize and control the vehicle 10.”).
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are NOT imported into the claims. The Examiner must give the claim language the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) the claims allow.
See MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-10.2024], which states
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Inter US-20100280751-A1 1pretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV., below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
In Zletz, supra, the examiner and the Board had interpreted claims reading "normally solid polypropylene" and "normally solid polypropylene having a crystalline polypropylene content" as being limited to "normally solid linear high homopolymers of propylene which have a crystalline polypropylene content." The court ruled that limitations, not present in the claims, were improperly imported from the specification. See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'" (quoting In re Okuzawa, 537 F.2d 545, 548, 190 USPQ 464, 466 (CCPA 1976)). The court looked to the specification to construe "essentially free of alkali metal" as including unavoidable levels of impurities but no more.).”
Regarding claim 2 and the limitation the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer specifies the absolute position based on reliability information that is information on reliability for the surrounding environment information (given the BRI of “reliability information” see para:
“[0058] In one example, the method 400 may begin at 405. For each measurement of the radar data at 410, the measurement is processed at 420 and evaluated based on a decision tree 425 to decide whether to discard or to preserve the data. In various embodiments, each node of the decision tree 425 may be defined based on a filtering parameter. For example, at 430 it is determined whether the measurement is from a dynamic object. If so, the measurement is discarded at 480. In another example, it is determined whether the measurement is a ghost detection at 440 If so, the measurement is discarded at 480. In another example, it is determined whether the measurement is a from a non-permanent object at 450. If so, the measurement is discarded at 480. In another example, it is determined whether the measurement is outside of a threshold range at 460. If so, the measurement is discarded at 480. In another example, it is determined whether the measurement is from outside of a defined field of view threshold at 470. If so, the measurement is discarded at 480.”).
Regarding claim 4 and the limitation the information processing apparatus according to claim 2 wherein the computer acquires the reliability information based on map information (given the BRI see para [0058] above).
Regarding claim 5 and the limitation the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer is further configured to transmit the surrounding environment information to an external apparatus (20), wherein the specifying section (18c) specifies the absolute position based on a map created or updated based on the surrounding environment information transmitted to the external apparatus (20) (see para:
“[0033] The communication system 36 is configured to wirelessly communicate information to and from other entities 48, such as but not limited to, other vehicles (“V2V” communication,) infrastructure (“V2I” communication), remote systems, and/or personal devices (described in more detail with regard to FIG. 2). In an exemplary embodiment, the communication system 36 is a wireless communication system configured to communicate via a wireless local area network (WLAN) using IEEE 802.11 standards or by using cellular data communication. However, additional or alternate communication methods, such as a dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) channel, are also considered within the scope of the present disclosure. DSRC channels refer to one-way or two-way short-range to medium-range wireless communication channels specifically designed for automotive use and a corresponding set of protocols and standards.”).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the computer is further configured to transmit absolute position information that is information related to the absolute position to the external apparatus (20) (see para [0033] above).
Regarding claim 7 and the limitation the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the computer is further configured to execute driving support control to support driving by a rider of the leaning vehicle (10) based on absolute position information that is information related to the absolute position (see paras [0027] and [0073]).
Regarding claim 8 and the limitation an information processing system (1) that performs information processing related to a position of a leaning vehicle (10), the information processing system comprising a computer configured to:
acquire surrounding environment information that is information related to an environment in a surrounding of the leaning vehicle (10) based on an output from a radar (14) mounted to the leaning vehicle (10) (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference);
execute map creating processing of creating or updating a map based on the surrounding environment information (see para:
“[0056] In one example, the method 200 may begin at 205. Data 114-118 is collected from the sensor system 28, such as, from the radar, the wheel speed sensors, and the global positioning system at 210. The GPS data 116 is processed at 220. The data 114-118 is synchronized based on the GPS data at 230. The synchronized data 120 is filtered and weights are computed at 240. The filtered data 122 is then transformed in to the UTM coordinates at 250 An empty grid map is created at 260. The empty grid map is updated with the transformed data 136 at 270. The updated grip map is then filtered at 280. The filtered grid map is enhanced at 290. Thereafter, the grid map is divided into smaller grid maps and each smaller grid map is assigned an index based on its location in the larger grid map at 300. The divided grip map data 138 is then saved in the map datastore 112 based on its index at 310. Thereafter, the method may end at 320.”);
And specify an absolute position of the leaning vehicle (10) based on the map (see paras:
“[0037] In various embodiments, one or more instructions of the controller 34 are embodied in the mapping and localization system 100 and, when executed by the processor 44, process data from the radars to determine a map of the environment; and determines the vehicle location based on the map of the environment. For example, the mapping and localization system 100 generates a highly accurate grid (image) map, identifying permanent objects in the environment. Each cell (pixel) in the grid map, for example, is mapped to a Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system and represents discretized environment with radar perceived property. The radar grid map is then used to localize and control the vehicle 10.
[0073] In one embodiment, the method 800 may begin at 805. The radar data 712 is accumulated at 810. Upon a determined trigger, the local map 716 including the computed weights is generated at 820. The map 718 is retrieved from the map datastore 112 at 830. The local map 716 and the retrieved map 718 are correlated at 840. The localized pose 720 is then determined based on the correlation at 850. The localization data 722 is then generated based on the localized vehicle pose 720 and the retrieved map 718 and/or the local map 716 at 860. Thereafter, the vehicle 10 may be controlled based on the localization data at 870. The method 800 may end at 880.”).
Regarding claim 9 and the limitation the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein the computer specifies the absolute position based on reliability information that is information on reliability for the surrounding environment information (see paras [0056-58] above).
Regarding claim 10 and the limitation the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the computer does not execute the map creating processing when the reliability information is information indicating that the reliability for the acquired surrounding environment information is lower than a reference (see paras [0056-58] above).
Regarding claim 12 and the limitation the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the computer executes the map creating processing not based on the acquired surrounding environment information, when the reliability information is information indicating that the reliability for the acquired surrounding environment information is lower than a reference (see paras [0056-58] above).
Regarding claim 13 and the limitation the information processing system according to claim 8, further comprising an executing section (18d) that executes driving support control to support driving by a rider of the leaning vehicle (10) based on absolute position information that is information related to the absolute position (see paras [0027] and [0073]).
Regarding claim 14 and the limitation An information processing method of performing information processing related to a position of a leaning vehicle (10), the information processing method comprising:
acquiring, via a computer, surrounding environment information that is information related to an environment in a surrounding of the leaning vehicle (10) based on an output from a radar (14) mounted to the leaning vehicle (10);
and specifying, via the computer, an absolute position of the leaning vehicle (10) based on the surrounding environment information (see the rejection of corresponding parts of claim 1 above incorporated herein by reference.).
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 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.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020232801A1 to Kim et. al (hereinafter Kim is cited in the 12/26/2024 IDS) in view of US 20180326906 A1 to SAVARESI; Sergio Matteo et al. (hereinafter Savaresi, cited in the 12/26/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 3 and the limitation the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, Kim does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the computer acquires the reliability information based on traveling state information that is information related to a traveling state of the leaning vehicle (10).
In analogous art Savaresi teaches in for example, paras [0022], and [0070-72] wherein the computer acquires the reliability information based on traveling state information that is information related to a traveling state of the leaning vehicle (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings disclosed in Savaresi with the motorcycle taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “made a safer motorcycle in the inclined state” as taught by Savaresi para:
“[0022] Another object is to provide a motorcycle provided with the abovementioned device which can warn the rider whenever it is not possible to check for the presence of approaching vehicles, in particular when the motorcycle is inclined in order to take a bend or whenever the motorcycle is inclined to one side.”.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2020232801A1 to Kim et. al (hereinafter Kim is cited in the 12/26/2024 IDS) as applied to the claims above in view of WO 2021218388 A1 to ZHOU, WEI et al. (hereinafter Zhou, cited in the 12/26/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation the information processing system according to claim 9, Kim does not appear to expressly disclose wherein the computer acquires corrected surrounding environment information that is information obtained by correcting the acquired surrounding environment information, when the reliability information is information indicating that the reliability for the acquired surrounding environment information is lower than a reference.
In analogous art Zhou teaches in for example, para [0113] wherein the computer acquires corrected surrounding environment information that is information obtained by correcting the acquired surrounding environment information, when the reliability information is information indicating that the reliability for the acquired surrounding environment information is lower than a reference.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the corrections disclosed in Zhou with the corrections taught in Kim with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have “better corrected” as taught by both references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as teaching, inter alia, the state of the art at the time of the invention. For example:
US 3630079 A to Hughes; John Mark et al. teaches, inter alia NAVIGATION METHOD AND APPARATUS UTILIZING MULTIPLE SENSORS in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“The disclosure is directed to a navigation system for a vessel including a radio navigation system for generating signals representative of the absolute position of the vessel. A second independent system utilizing radio signals from an orbiting satellite also generates signals representative of the absolute position of the vessel. Other sensors including an acoustic doppler, navigation unit, a water speed indicator and a gyrocompass generate signals which can be combined to produce a signal representative of the position of the vessel relative to a reference location. A computer combines each of the signals according to certain weighting functions in order to generate a resultant output signal which to a minimum mean squared error sense provides extremely accurate and reliable position information for the vessel.”.
US 20030173127 A1 to Noecker, Gerhard teaches, inter alia Method for regulating the distance between a vehicle and another vehicle traveling ahead and a distance-regulating system in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“In a method for regulating the distance between a vehicle and another vehicle traveling ahead, vehicle state variables, vehicle characteristic variables are determined together with the distance from and velocity of at least one other vehicle in the vicinity. The distance from the other vehicle and the vehicle's own velocity are set to permitted limiting values. To increase driving safety, the vehicle's own velocity or the setpoint distance from the other vehicle traveling directly ahead are determined as a function of the vehicle velocity of at least one other vehicle traveling to the side, or of the distance between a plurality of other vehicles traveling to the side.”.
US 20190001986 A1 to HORITA; Yuki et al. teaches, inter alia SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT RECOGNITION DEVICE AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT in for example the ABSTRACT, Figures and/or Paragraphs below:
“Provided is a surrounding environment recognition device that is mounted in a vehicle, including: a traveling path information acquisition unit that acquires traveling path information indicating a traveling path for the vehicle; a surrounding environment element information acquisition unit that acquires surrounding environment element information that includes spatial positional-relationship information indicating a spatial positional relationship to the vehicle, which relates to an environment element in the vicinity of the vehicle; a relationship-of-environment-element-to-traveling calculation unit that calculates a relationship of the environment element to traveling of the vehicle, based on the traveling path information and the spatial positional-relationship information; a surrounding environment information provision unit that provides information relating to the environment element, based on the relationship to the traveling of the vehicle, which is calculated by the relationship-of-environment-element-to-traveling calculation unit.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LAWSON GREENE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6876. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-THUR 7-5:30PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 20260307