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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 20 September 2024, 16 October 2024, 19 September 2025, and 23 January 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Status of Application
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 1,8, and 9 are independent.
This NON-FINAL is in response to communications received 23 January 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 – “updates the second reference position based on the newly acquired peripheral vehicle information” should be corrected to “updates the second reference position based on newly acquired peripheral vehicle information” to avoid antecedent issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitation “a storage unit configured to store risk position information” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of paragraph [0025] of the Specification wherein “The storage unit 111 includes, for example, a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a hard disk, and the like” and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “an assistance unit configured to perform driving assistance” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of paragraph [0047] of the Specification wherein, “processing unit 110 (assistance unit 110b) performs driving assistance for the vehicle 100. As driving assistance for the vehicle 100, the processing unit 110 can notify an occupant of the vehicle 100 of the collision possibility by the notification device 104, and perform a braking operation of the vehicle 100 by the braking device 105” and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from a peripheral vehicle existing around the self-vehicle, peripheral vehicle information” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of paragraph [0028] of the Specification wherein, “The acquisition unit 110a acquires peripheral vehicle information indicating a current position, a vehicle speed, and a traveling track of a peripheral vehicle that exists around the vehicle 100 from the peripheral vehicle via the vehicle-to-vehicle communication antenna 103 (vehicle-to-vehicle communication module 114),” and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “an identification unit configured to perform an intersection identification operation” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of paragraphs [0025] and [0027] of the Specification wherein “The processing unit 110 is a processor represented by a central processing unit (CPU)” and “The processing unit 110 can include an acquisition unit 110a, an assistance unit 110b, an identification unit 110c, and an update unit 110d to perform driving assistance (collision prevention assistance in some embodiments) for the vehicle 100”. Therefore, an identification unit is interpreted to be a CPU or equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation “an update unit configured to update the risk position information” in claim 1 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection 1. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and is interpreted in view of paragraphs [0025] and [0027] of the Specification wherein “The processing unit 110 is a processor represented by a central processing unit (CPU)” and “The processing unit 110 can include an acquisition unit 110a, an assistance unit 110b, an identification unit 110c, and an update unit 110d to perform driving assistance (collision prevention assistance in some embodiments) for the vehicle 100”. Therefore, an update unit is interpreted to be a CPU or equivalents thereof.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus. Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 is directed to a process. Therefore, Claim 8 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus (storage medium). Therefore, Claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 9 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 9 recites: A non-transitory storage medium configured to store a program for making computer mounted on a self-vehicle including a storage unit configured to store risk position information indicating a position where there is a possibility that the self-vehicle collides with another vehicle, perform:
performing driving assistance for the self-vehicle based on the risk position information;
acquiring, from a peripheral vehicle existing around the self-vehicle, peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, and a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication;
performing an intersection identification operation of identifying an intersection between a traveling track of the self-vehicle and a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle;
and updating the risk position information based on the intersection identified by the intersection identification operation, wherein
the identification operation includes:
performing the intersection identification operation using, as a first reference position, a position where the self-vehicle accelerates after decelerating to a threshold value or less or a position where the self-vehicle temporarily stops in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within a first range in front of the self-vehicle;
performing the intersection identification operation using, as a second reference position, an intersection between a predicted course of the self-vehicle and a predicted course of the peripheral vehicle in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within a second range on a side of the self-vehicle.
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. Specifically, the “performing” and “updating” steps encompass a user to look ahead on a road and decide whether or not to make a driving maneuver. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
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 “computer mounted on a self-vehicle”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “computer” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the performing and updating steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the computer is claimed generically and is operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of performing intersection identification and updating risk position information is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that acquiring peripheral vehicle information and using a computer, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 controller 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 (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 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 9 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 the apparatus, the controller amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data and dividing data, and determinizing errors, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of acquiring vehicle information and performing driving assistance are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the systems from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 9 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-7 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1, 8, and 9.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle with collected information. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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.
(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 1, 3, 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagiwara et al. (US 20220289187 A1), hereinafter Hagiwara.
Regarding claim 1, Hagiwara discloses:
A driving assistance device comprising (Fig. 4A, S94; [0032], The vehicle 1 is a vehicle capable of performing driving assistance for preventing a collision with another vehicle or the like without using map information by a control to be described later. The vehicle 1 includes a control device 10, a sensor group 11, a global positioning system (GPS) antenna 12, a vehicle-to-vehicle communication antenna 13, a notification device 14, and a braking device 15):
a storage unit configured to store risk position information indicating a position where there is a possibility that a self-vehicle mounted with the driving assistance device collides with another vehicle (Fig. 1, 102; [0034], The storage unit 102 is a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a hard disk drive, or the like and stores various data in addition to the program executed by the processing unit 101; [0036], FIG. 2A is a diagram illustrating a configuration example of the intersection position DB 1021. The intersection position DB 1021 stores information regarding an intersection position registered by processing to be described later. In the present embodiment, the intersection position DB 1021 stores an intersection position ID, a registration date and time, position information, and an entry azimuth in association with each other for each intersection position);
an assistance unit configured to perform driving assistance for the self-vehicle based on the risk position information ([0033], The control device 10 is, for example, an electronic control unit (ECU), and functions as a driving assistance device that performs a driving assistance control);
an acquisition unit configured to acquire, from a peripheral vehicle existing around the self-vehicle, peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, and a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication ([0132], an acquisition unit (101, S10) configured to acquire data regarding a travel trajectory of another vehicle from the other vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication);
an identification unit configured to perform an intersection identification operation of identifying an intersection between a traveling track of the self-vehicle and a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle ([0135], a determination unit (101, S23) configured to determine, in a case where the acquisition unit acquires the data from another vehicle traveling in the monitoring region in a state in which the monitoring region is set, whether or not to update the monitoring region based on a result of comparison between first data that is the data used to set the monitoring region and second data that is the data acquired from the other vehicle traveling in the monitoring region);
and an update unit configured to update the risk position information based on the intersection identified by the intersection identification operation, wherein the identification unit ([0136], wherein the setting unit updates the monitoring region based on the second data in a case where the determination unit determines to update the monitoring region (S25)):
performs the intersection identification operation using, as a first reference position, a position where the self-vehicle accelerates after decelerating to a threshold value or less or a position where the self-vehicle temporarily stops in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within a first range in front of the self-vehicle ([0126], in a case where the vehicle 1 temporarily stops before the intersection position 51, the processing unit 101 may perform the setting processing or update processing; [0058], In S93, the processing unit 101 checks whether or not there is another vehicle in the monitoring region, and in a case where there is another vehicle, the processing unit 101 proceeds to S94, and in a case where there is no other vehicle, the processing unit ends the flowchart. For example, the processing unit 101 checks whether or not there is another vehicle in the monitoring region based on position information of another vehicle acquired by the vehicle-to-vehicle communication module 1032 through vehicle-to-vehicle communication. For example, the processing unit 101 checks whether or not there is another vehicle in the monitoring region based on a detection result of the outside detection sensor capable of detecting an object around the vehicle 1. In the situation illustrated in FIG. 4B, since the vehicle 9 is traveling in the monitoring region 99, the processing unit 101 proceeds to S94);
and performs the intersection identification operation using, as a second reference position, an intersection between a predicted course of the self-vehicle and a predicted course of the peripheral vehicle in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within a second range on a side of the self-vehicle (Fig. 1, 1021; Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; [0133], a specifying unit (101, S12) configured to specify an intersection position between the travel trajectory of the other vehicle and a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle based on the data acquired by the acquisition unit; [0134], a setting unit (101, S15) configured to set, in a case where the intersection position is specifiable by the specifying unit, a region based on the intersection position and the travel trajectory of the other vehicle as a monitoring region when performing driving assistance).
Regarding claim 3, Hagiwara discloses:
wherein the identification unit ([0135], determination unit):
sets a first determination region with respect to the first reference position in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within the first range, and performs the intersection identification operation in a case where both the peripheral vehicle and the self-vehicle pass through the first determination region (Abstract, A setting unit setts a region based on the intersection position and the travel trajectory of the other vehicle as a monitoring region when performing driving assistance; Fig. 3B; Fig. 5; [0052], In addition, FIG. 3B illustrates a monitoring region 99 set based on the travel trajectory and the intersection position 5 of the vehicle 9. As will be described in detail later, the control device 10 sets, as the monitoring region 99, a region having a predetermined width around the travel trajectory 98 in a portion in front of the intersection position 5 of the travel trajectory 98. The predetermined width may be set to, for example, several meters in consideration of a general lane width. In addition, the control device 10 stores information regarding the set monitoring region 99 in the monitoring region DB 1022);
and sets a second determination region with respect to the second reference position in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within the second range, and performs the intersection identification operation in a case where both the peripheral vehicle and the self-vehicle pass through the second determination region (Abstract, A setting unit setts a region based on the intersection position and the travel trajectory of the other vehicle as a monitoring region when performing driving assistance; Fig. 3B; Fig. 5; [0052], In addition, FIG. 3B illustrates a monitoring region 99 set based on the travel trajectory and the intersection position 5 of the vehicle 9. As will be described in detail later, the control device 10 sets, as the monitoring region 99, a region having a predetermined width around the travel trajectory 98 in a portion in front of the intersection position 5 of the travel trajectory 98. The predetermined width may be set to, for example, several meters in consideration of a general lane width. In addition, the control device 10 stores information regarding the set monitoring region 99 in the monitoring region DB 1022).
Regarding claim 5, Hagiwara discloses:
the identification unit sets the second determination region to include the second reference position (Abstract, A setting unit setts a region based on the intersection position and the travel trajectory of the other vehicle as a monitoring region when performing driving assistance; Fig. 3B; Fig. 5; [0052], In addition, FIG. 3B illustrates a monitoring region 99 set based on the travel trajectory and the intersection position 5 of the vehicle 9. As will be described in detail later, the control device 10 sets, as the monitoring region 99, a region having a predetermined width around the travel trajectory 98 in a portion in front of the intersection position 5 of the travel trajectory 98. The predetermined width may be set to, for example, several meters in consideration of a general lane width. In addition, the control device 10 stores information regarding the set monitoring region 99 in the monitoring region DB 1022).
Regarding claim 7, Hagiwara discloses:
wherein the identification unit ([0135], determination unit):
deletes the first determination region in a case where the intersection identification operation is ended after the first determination region is set or in a case where the self-vehicle is separated from the first reference position by a predetermined distance or more ([0082], In S25, the processing unit 101 updates the monitoring region. Specifically, based on the travel trajectory 981b of the vehicle 9b, the processing unit 101 sets, as a new monitoring region 991b, a region having a predetermined width in a portion in front of the intersection position 51 of the travel trajectory 981a of the vehicle 9a. For example, the processing unit 101 deletes data regarding the monitoring region 991a based on the data Dl registered in the monitoring region DB 1022, and stores data regarding the monitoring region 991b based on the data D2 in the monitoring region DB 1022. As described above, in a case where it is determined to update the monitoring region, the processing unit 101 updates the monitoring region based on the data D2. [0083] FIG. 11 is a flowchart illustrating a processing example of the processing unit 101, and illustrates a specific processing example of S23 of FIG. 8);
and deletes the second determination region in a case where the intersection identification operation is ended after the second determination region is set or in a case where the self-vehicle is separated from the updated second reference position by a predetermined distance or more ([0082], In S25, the processing unit 101 updates the monitoring region. Specifically, based on the travel trajectory 981b of the vehicle 9b, the processing unit 101 sets, as a new monitoring region 991b, a region having a predetermined width in a portion in front of the intersection position 51 of the travel trajectory 981a of the vehicle 9a. For example, the processing unit 101 deletes data regarding the monitoring region 991a based on the data Dl registered in the monitoring region DB 1022, and stores data regarding the monitoring region 991b based on the data D2 in the monitoring region DB 1022. As described above, in a case where it is determined to update the monitoring region, the processing unit 101 updates the monitoring region based on the data D2. [0083] FIG. 11 is a flowchart illustrating a processing example of the processing unit 101 , and illustrates a specific processing example of S23 of FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Hagiwara discloses:
A method of assisting driving, the method performed by a self-vehicle, wherein the self-vehicle includes a storage unit configured to store risk position information indicating a position where there is a possibility that the self-vehicle collides with another vehicle, the method comprising ([0006], a driving assistance method comprising: acquiring data regarding a travel trajectory of another vehicle from the other vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication; specifying an intersection position between the travel trajectory of the other vehicle and a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle based on the data acquired in the acquiring; setting, in a case where the intersection position is specifiable in the specifying, a region based on the intersection position and the travel trajectory of the other vehicle as a monitoring region when performing driving assistance; and updating the monitoring region based on a result of comparison between first data that is data used to set the monitoring region and second data that is data newly acquired in the acquiring from the other vehicle that has passed through a predetermined region based on the intersection position):
performing driving assistance for the self-vehicle based on the risk position information ([0033], The control device 10 is, for example, an electronic control unit (ECU), and functions as a driving assistance device that performs a driving assistance control);
acquiring, from a peripheral vehicle existing around the self-vehicle, peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, and a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication ([0132], an acquisition unit (101, S10) configured to acquire data regarding a travel trajectory of another vehicle from the other vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication);
performing an intersection identification operation of identifying an intersection between a traveling track of the self-vehicle and a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle ([0135], a determination unit (101, S23) configured to determine, in a case where the acquisition unit acquires the data from another vehicle traveling in the monitoring region in a state in which the monitoring region is set, whether or not to update the monitoring region based on a result of comparison between first data that is the data used to set the monitoring region and second data that is the data acquired from the other vehicle traveling in the monitoring region);
and updating the risk position information based on the intersection identified by the intersection identification operation, wherein the identification operation includes ([0136], wherein the setting unit updates the monitoring region based on the second data in a case where the determination unit determines to update the monitoring region (S25)):
performing the intersection identification operation using, as a first reference position, a position where the self-vehicle accelerates after decelerating to a threshold value or less or a position where the self-vehicle temporarily stops in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within a first range in front of the self-vehicle ([0126], in a case where the vehicle 1 temporarily stops before the intersection position 51, the processing unit 101 may perform the setting processing or update processing; [0058], In S93, the processing unit 101 checks whether or not there is another vehicle in the monitoring region, and in a case where there is another vehicle, the processing unit 101 proceeds to S94, and in a case where there is no other vehicle, the processing unit ends the flowchart. For example, the processing unit 101 checks whether or not there is another vehicle in the monitoring region based on position information of another vehicle acquired by the vehicle-to-vehicle communication module 1032 through vehicle-to-vehicle communication. For example, the processing unit 101 checks whether or not there is another vehicle in the monitoring region based on a detection result of the outside detection sensor capable of detecting an object around the vehicle 1. In the situation illustrated in FIG. 4B, since the vehicle 9 is traveling in the monitoring region 99, the processing unit 101 proceeds to S94);
and performing the intersection identification operation using, as a second reference position, an intersection between a predicted course of the self-vehicle and a predicted course of the peripheral vehicle in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within a second range on a side of the self-vehicle (Fig. 1, 1021; Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; [0133], a specifying unit (101, S12) configured to specify an intersection position between the travel trajectory of the other vehicle and a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle based on the data acquired by the acquisition unit; [0134], a setting unit (101, S15) configured to set, in a case where the intersection position is specifiable by the specifying unit, a region based on the intersection position and the travel trajectory of the other vehicle as a monitoring region when performing driving assistance).
Regarding claim 9, Hagiwara discloses:
A non-transitory storage medium configured to store a program for making computer mounted on a self-vehicle including a storage unit configured to store risk position information indicating a position where there is a possibility that the self-vehicle collides with another vehicle, perform ([0034], The processing unit 101 is a processor as typified by a central processing unit (CPU), and executes a program stored in the storage unit 102. The storage unit 102 is a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a hard disk drive, or the like and stores various data in addition to the program executed by the processing unit 101. The communication unit 103 is a communication interface for communication with an external device):
performing driving assistance for the self-vehicle based on the risk position information ([0033], The control device 10 is, for example, an electronic control unit (ECU), and functions as a driving assistance device that performs a driving assistance control);
acquiring, from a peripheral vehicle existing around the self-vehicle, peripheral vehicle information indicating a vehicle speed, a position, and a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication ([0132], an acquisition unit (101, S10) configured to acquire data regarding a travel trajectory of another vehicle from the other vehicle by vehicle-to-vehicle communication);
performing an intersection identification operation of identifying an intersection between a traveling track of the self-vehicle and a traveling track of the peripheral vehicle ([0135], a determination unit (101, S23) configured to determine, in a case where the acquisition unit acquires the data from another vehicle traveling in the monitoring region in a state in which the monitoring region is set, whether or not to update the monitoring region based on a result of comparison between first data that is the data used to set the monitoring region and second data that is the data acquired from the other vehicle traveling in the monitoring region);
and updating the risk position information based on the intersection identified by the intersection identification operation, wherein the identification operation includes ([0136], wherein the setting unit updates the monitoring region based on the second data in a case where the determination unit determines to update the monitoring region (S25)):
performing the intersection identification operation using, as a first reference position, a position where the self-vehicle accelerates after decelerating to a threshold value or less or a position where the self-vehicle temporarily stops in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within a first range in front of the self-vehicle ([0126], in a case where the vehicle 1 temporarily stops before the intersection position 51, the processing unit 101 may perform the setting processing or update processing; [0058], In S93, the processing unit 101 checks whether or not there is another vehicle in the monitoring region, and in a case where there is another vehicle, the processing unit 101 proceeds to S94, and in a case where there is no other vehicle, the processing unit ends the flowchart. For example, the processing unit 101 checks whether or not there is another vehicle in the monitoring region based on position information of another vehicle acquired by the vehicle-to-vehicle communication module 1032 through vehicle-to-vehicle communication. For example, the processing unit 101 checks whether or not there is another vehicle in the monitoring region based on a detection result of the outside detection sensor capable of detecting an object around the vehicle 1. In the situation illustrated in FIG. 4B, since the vehicle 9 is traveling in the monitoring region 99, the processing unit 101 proceeds to S94);
and performing the intersection identification operation using, as a second reference position, an intersection between a predicted course of the self-vehicle and a predicted course of the peripheral vehicle in a case where the peripheral vehicle exists within a second range on a side of the self-vehicle (Fig. 1, 1021; Fig. 2A; Fig. 2B; [0133], a specifying unit (101, S12) configured to specify an intersection position between the travel trajectory of the other vehicle and a travel trajectory of a self-vehicle based on the data acquired by the acquisition unit; [0134], a setting unit (101, S15) configured to set, in a case where the intersection position is specifiable by the specifying unit, a region based on the intersection position and the travel trajectory of the other vehicle as a monitoring region when performing driving assistance).
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara in view of Yamazaki (US 20220297687 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hagiwara discloses:
wherein the identification unit ([0135], determination unit):
However, Hagiwara does not specifically state:
uses the first reference position common to a plurality of peripheral vehicles in a case where the plurality of peripheral vehicles exists within the first range;
and uses a respective second reference position for each of a plurality of peripheral vehicles in a case where the plurality of peripheral vehicles exists within the second range.
Yamazaki teaches:
uses the first reference position common to a plurality of peripheral vehicles in a case where the plurality of peripheral vehicles exists within the first range ([0066], The steps shown in FIG. 5 can be changed as appropriate. For example, the order of steps S51 and S52 and steps S53 and S54 may be changed. When the own vehicle 50 is to turn left, step S54 may not be executed. When there are a plurality of other vehicles 60, the calculation unit 26 may execute the processing illustrated in FIG. 5 for each of the plurality of other vehicles 60. At this time, the calculation unit 26 may execute steps S53 to S55 in common for each of the plurality of other vehicles 60; [0075], FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of control of driving support in a traffic intersection area. A traffic intersection area 131 illustrated in FIG. 8 is an area including the traffic intersection 130 and the vicinity of the traffic intersection 130. For example, the traffic intersection area 131 is a circular area centered on the traffic intersection 130 and including a part of the traffic intersection 130. The driving support unit 265 may perform the driving support when the own vehicle 50 is present in the traffic intersection area 131, and may not perform the driving support when the own vehicle 50 is not present in the traffic intersection area 131);
and uses a respective second reference position for each of a plurality of peripheral vehicles in a case where the plurality of peripheral vehicles exists within the second range (Fig. 11; [0089], FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating an example of driving support in a case where an oncoming vehicle is also present behind an oncoming vehicle. In the example of FIG. 11, similarly to the situation in FIG. 4, another vehicle 80 is present behind the other vehicle 60 in the traveling direction of the other vehicle 60. Similarly to the other vehicle 60, the other vehicle 80 is traveling on the first traveling road 110 in a direction opposite to that of the own vehicle 50, and is scheduled to travel straight through the traffic intersection 130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki into the invention of Hagiwara to include a first reference position common to a plurality of vehicles and a second reference point for each of a plurality of vehicles with trajectories that intersect with a trajectory of a self-vehicle as Yamazaki discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that accounts for nearby vehicles traveling through an intersection which may collide with a self-vehicle during normal driving conditions. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a driving assist system the generates monitoring regions for a vehicle traveling through a path of a self-vehicle as disclosed by Hagiwara and a driving assist system that monitors multiple vehicle which may collide with a self-vehicle as taught by Yamazaki. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara in view of Yoshida (US 20190385456 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hagiwara does not specifically state:
the identification unit sets the first determination region to include the first reference position and to offset to an opposite lane side with respect to the self-vehicle in a direction orthogonal to a predicted course of the self-vehicle.
Yoshida teaches:
the identification unit sets the first determination region to include the first reference position and to offset to an opposite lane side with respect to the self-vehicle in a direction orthogonal to a predicted course of the self-vehicle ([0091], Specifically, the request transmission unit 111 specifies, of the road where the moving route R runs, a road portion extending from a start point S to an end point E as the route area 51. Regarding this, if there is an opposite lane on the road where the moving route R runs, the request transmission unit 111 specifies the range including the opposite lane as the route area 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yoshida into the invention of Hagiwara to include including an entire width of road including an opposite lane when a moving route is specified as Yoshida discloses with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art to create a more robust system that includes crossing points in a road when specifying a moving route (Yoshida: [0092]). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well-known elements of a driving assist system the generates monitoring regions for a vehicle traveling through a path of a self-vehicle as disclosed by Hagiwara and a driving assist system that monitors obstacles reported by roadside apparatuses or other vehicles as taught by Yoshida. The combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Documents Considered but Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Sato (US 20150274162 A1) discloses a drive assist apparatus such that, in a vehicle in which a plurality of types of drive assist is implemented, the appropriateness of each drive assist can be maintained. A drive assist unit is provided with: a collision avoidance assist unit that implements individual drive assists; a vehicle-to-vehicle distance assist unit; and a cruise travel assist unit. An assist arbitration unit arbitrates between at least two or more drive assists when the at least two or more drive assists are implemented by the drive assist unit within a prescribed time on the basis of a plurality of types of assist elements. Hutcheson et al. (US 20180208195 A1) discloses automated driving behavior of a self-driving vehicle may be controlled. In some cases, a system may determine a collision risk for the first self-driving vehicle. The first vehicle may receive from one or more nearby vehicles a collision risk assessment value determined by said vehicle. The first vehicle may determine an aggregate collision risk score based on the determined collision risk and the received collision risk assessments. Responsive to a determination that the aggregate collision risk score has changed relative to a previously calculated aggregate collision risk score, the first vehicle may adapt at least one of its self-driving parameters to control automated driving behavior. Lee et al. (US 20200183002 A1) discloses a method of fusing a surrounding vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) signal and a sensing signal of an ego vehicle includes calculating a position of a surrounding target vehicle and a velocity of the target vehicle based on the ego vehicle using global positioning system (GPS)/vehicle velocity information detected in the ego vehicle and GPS/vehicle velocity information included in a V2V signal detected in the target vehicle, extracting a sensor signal within a predetermined specific distance error from a position of the target vehicle relative to the ego vehicle of the V2V signal as a sensor information candidate group corresponding to the V2V signal, adaptively using a constant velocity model, a kinematic model or a dynamic model according to the extracted situation, and comparing the V2V signal with information on an object tracked using both the sensing signal and the V2V signal to estimate a position and velocity error of the V2V signal. Steefey et al. (US 20190315343 A1) discloses an automated collision mitigation system of a vehicle includes a vehicle controller, a free space monitor unit, a rear collision monitor unit, a communicator, a drivetrain system and a braking system. The free space monitor unit detects a free space in front of a host vehicle and the rear collision monitor unit detect parameters of a remote vehicle located rearwardly of the host vehicle. The communicator sends and receives signal from the other vehicles or infrastructures by V2V or V2I wireless network. The vehicle controller evaluates an accelerating time of the host vehicle and a time-to-collision of the rear remote vehicle. In addition, the vehicle controller determines to activate the drivetrain system or the braking system of the host vehicle. Matsuoka et al. (US 20170072852 A1) discloses an alarm controller generates an alarm output instruction when an own vehicle state determination unit determines that an own vehicle intends to cross the opposite lane at an intersection, and the object state determination unit determines that an oncoming vehicle or a person exists or moves in a direction in which the own vehicle crosses the opposite lane at into the intersection. A shift position detector detects a shift lever position. When the shift position detector detects that a shift lever is in a parking position or a reverse position, the alarm controller does not generate the alarm output instruction. Rubin et al. (US 8520695 B1) discloses a device, system and method, in a vehicle communication system, to transmit wirelessly a message comprising the position, heading and speed of a vehicle or other moving object, wherein the transmission is repeated at regular intervals in a temporarily fixed time slot within a predetermined basic time interval. In a key embodiment the message duration is equal to or less than a predetermined time slot duration. Embodiments use generally the same time slot in a contiguous sequence of basic time intervals. Algorithms are described to resolve wireless interference within a time slot. Embodiments divide the basic time interval in multiple durations, "class regions," for different message classes. Embodiments use different wireless bandwidth allocation algorithms for the class regions. Whitfield, Jr. et al. (US 20210004024 A1) discloses a system for controlling a plurality of autonomous vehicles on a mine site, the system comprising: a centralized platform configured to store an inventory list of vehicles travelling on the mine site and configured to determine and communicate missions to the vehicles; a plurality of autonomous vehicles, the autonomous vehicles comprising: an interface configured to communicate with the centralized platform for receiving a predetermined mission, a trajectory control system configured to autonomously control the autonomous vehicle according to the predetermined mission, a detection system configured to detect other vehicles by evaluating sensor information received from at least one sensor of the vehicle, a collision prediction system configured to predict collisions with the other vehicles detected by the detection system; a V2V communication interface for directly communicating with a V2V communication interface of at least one of the other vehicles on the mine site for exchanging information between the vehicles. Aoki (US 20200239020 A1) discloses a driving assistance device includes: an information receiver configured to receive information required for estimation of another vehicle predicted route which is a predicted traveling route of another vehicle, from the other vehicle through wireless communication; and an electronic control unit configured to acquire a host vehicle predicted route which is a predicted travel route of a host vehicle, acquire the other vehicle predicted route; provide a warning to a driver of the host vehicle when the host vehicle predicted route and the other vehicle predicted route intersect each other, and prohibit the electronic control unit from providing the warning when determining that a predetermined parking lot traveling condition is satisfied, the predetermined parking lot traveling condition being a condition that is satisfied when the electronic control unit determines that the host vehicle is likely to be traveling in a parking lot. Jardine (US 20220135039 A1) discloses a control system and a method for a host vehicle operable in an autonomous mode. The control system comprises one or more controllers. The speed and/or path of the vehicle in the autonomous mode is appropriate to a driving context. Herman (US 20200257308 A1) discloses a method and apparatus are disclosed for autonomous vehicle systems utilizing vehicle-to-vehicle communication. An example vehicle includes a communication module configured to perform vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication with an adjacent vehicle having an autonomous system. The example vehicle also includes a controller configured to monitor within the V2V communication for a request by the autonomous system for manual override and, upon identifying the request, determine a collision probability for the adjacent vehicle based at least on the V2V communication. The controller also is configured to compare the collision probability to a first threshold. The example vehicle also includes an autonomy unit to autonomously perform a defensive driving maneuver responsive to the controller determining that the collision probability is greater than the first threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IZCALLI ANDRE RIOS-AGUIRRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 - 17:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/I.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666