DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 9/20/2024.
In the application Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
4. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 2023-170823 (JP), filed 9/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/20/2024 & 6/12/2025 has been entered, and considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Drawings
7. The Drawings filed on 9/20/2024 have been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term “means” or “step” triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term “means,” examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term “means”). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.”. 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 elements in this application that use “configured to” in combination with generic placeholder are interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites: “an acquisition unit configured to acquire surrounding vehicle information…” & “a determination unit configured to determine…” & “a specifying unit configured to specify…”
The terms “acquisition unit” & “determination unit” & “specifying unit” are generic placeholders that do not denote a specific structure recognized in the art, but instead serve as nonce words for performing the recited functions. The linking words “configured to acquire surrounding vehicle information” & “configured to determine” & “configured to specify” are the functional trigger language that define the claimed elements solely by the functions they perform, rather than by any recited structure. The claim does not specify any particular hardware architecture, circuitry, or algorithm by which these functions are carried out. As such, the claim fails to recite sufficient structure to avoid means-plus-function interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that performs the function of acquiring surrounding vehicle information includes antenna 13 via (vehicle-to-vehicle communication module 24) including sensor group 11 and GNSS antenna 12 outlined in paragraph 29.
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that perform the function of determining includes processing unit 21 (determination unit 21c) outlined in paragraph 54.
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that perform the function of specifying includes processing unit 21 (specifying unit 21d) outlined in paragraph 59.
Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the scope of the “acquisition unit” & “determination unit” & “specifying unit” limitations are limited to the corresponding structures and algorithms disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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.
10. Claims 1, 4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiwara (JP-2022138594A, English translated version, published 2022, previously cited in the 1449 dated 6/12/2025) in view of Kurehashi (U.S. Pub 2019/0287406, published Sep. 19, 2019, previously cited in the 1449 dated 9/20/2024).
Regarding Independent claims 1, 13 and 14, Hagiwara discloses A driving assistance device that includes a storage unit configured to store a plurality of intersection locations each indicating a location where a traveling trajectory of a self-vehicle and a traveling trajectory of another vehicle intersect in a past and performs driving assistance for the self-vehicle based on each of the plurality of intersection locations, the device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire surrounding vehicle information including a traveling trajectory of a surrounding vehicle present around the self-vehicle, from the surrounding vehicle, through vehicle-to-vehicle communication (see pgs. 5-6, discloses processing unit 101 with vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication module 1032 including acquiring data from vehicle 9 (another vehicle). He further discloses traveling trajectory via travel locus data including positions 970-977 and orientations 960-967 in Fig. 7A);
a determination unit configured to determine, as a candidate point for specifying a location where the self-vehicle and the surrounding vehicle intersect, a point at which the self-vehicle starts to accelerate after decelerating to a speed threshold value or less or a point at which the self-vehicle temporarily stops (see pgs. 3-4, discloses identification of intersection points based on the geometric intersection of travel trajectories);
a specifying unit configured to specify, as a new intersection location, a location where the traveling trajectory of the self-vehicle and the traveling trajectory of the surrounding vehicle intersect in a case of determining that the surrounding vehicle has passed through a predetermined area set for the candidate point based on the surrounding vehicle information acquired by the acquisition unit (see pgs. 3-4, discloses processing unit 101 (S12) which specifies intersection positions. Further teaching identification of new intersection position 5 where trajectories cross including calculating intersection of travel locus 181 (vehicle 1) and travel locus 981 (Vehicle 9); and
a registration unit configured to register, in the storage unit, the new intersection location is specified by the specifying unit (see section 3.1 on pg. 6, discloses processing unit 101 that performs registration function and stores information in intersection position database 1021 of storage unit 102 which includes identified intersection position stored in (s14)). Hagiwara discloses storage of multiple intersection locations including V2V communication for acquiring trajectory data and the registration of identified intersections. He fails to teach determining candidate points having predetermined areas around the points via deceleration/acceleration behavior and conditionally specifying intersections based on whether the surrounding vehicle passes through those predetermined areas. Kurehashi discloses a specifying unit that is an intersection registering unit 30 in paragraph 40 & registers candidate point 122 as a specific intersection 10a in paragraph 52. He further discloses in paragraph 52 trajectory intersection that is established via candidate point calculation in paragraph 43. He discloses that the intersection registering unit 30 sets a passage zone 124 having a radius and centered at the candidate point 122 in paragraph 57. Next, he determines if a surround vehicle has passed through the area in paragraph 57. Further disclosing registration only when other vehicle passes through first in steps S7-S13. The method for determining the passage is disclosed in paragraphs 54-60 and includes distance-based with zone entry/exit and directional check. Both Hagiwara and Kurehashi disclose vehicle intersection detection. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have recognized that deceleration/stopping are common vehicle behaviors at intersections due to traffic lights. Both Hagiwara and Kurehashi aim to identify intersections without map data, thus tracking self-vehicle dynamic behaviors at different locations provides an alternate method to identify candidate intersection locations. One motivation is to reduce the number of false positive intersection identifications which results in less data being stored in the device has outlined by Hagiwara (see abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 1, Hagiwara fails to teach conditionally specifying intersections based on whether the surrounding vehicle passes through those predetermined areas. Kurehashi discloses wherein the specifying unit sets, as the predetermined area, a quadrangular area including the candidate point and having a virtual line extending in a vehicle width direction of the self-vehicle as one side, and in a case where the surrounding vehicle crosses any one of four sides of the predetermined area from inside to outside of the predetermined area, the specifying unit determines that the surrounding vehicle has passed through the predetermined area (see paragraphs 54-60). Both Hagiwara and Kurehashi disclose vehicle intersection detection. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have recognized that deceleration/stopping are common vehicle behaviors at intersections due to traffic lights. Both Hagiwara and Kurehashi aim to identify intersections without map data, thus tracking self-vehicle dynamic behaviors at different locations provides an alternate method to identify candidate intersection locations. One motivation is to reduce the number of false positive intersection identifications which results in less data being stored in the device has outlined by Hagiwara (see abstract).
Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 1, Hagiwara discloses wherein the specifying unit cancels the setting of the predetermined area for the candidate point in a case where the new intersection location is registered in the storage unit by the registration unit or in a case where the self-vehicle travels a prescribed distance from the candidate point (see pg. 6 paragraphs 1-3 & pg. 7, paragraphs 1-4, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 1, Hagiwara discloses wherein the specifying unit does not set a new predetermined area in a case where a prescribed number of the predetermined areas are already set (see pgs. 5-6, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 1, Hagiwara discloses wherein the registration unit registers a traveling trajectory of the surrounding vehicle until reaching the new intersection location, in the storage unit, in association with the new intersection location based on the surrounding vehicle information (see pg. 6 paragraphs 1-3 & pg. 7, paragraphs 1-4, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 1, Hagiwara discloses wherein the registration unit registers an azimuth in which the self-vehicle faces when entering the new intersection location, in the storage unit, in association with the new intersection location based on the traveling trajectory of the self-vehicle (see pg. 3, paragraph 5, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 1, Hagiwara discloses wherein, in a case where the new intersection location is specified within a predetermined range from at least one of the plurality of intersection locations stored in the storage unit, the registration unit registers the new intersection location in the storage unit by correcting the at least one intersection location with the new intersection location (see pg. 6 paragraphs 1-3 & pg. 7, paragraphs 1-4, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 1, Hagiwara fails to teach conditionally specifying intersections based on whether the surrounding vehicle passes through those predetermined areas. Kurehashi discloses wherein, in a case of determining that a plurality of the surrounding vehicles have passed through the predetermined area, the specifying unit specifies, as the new intersection location, a representative value of a location where a traveling trajectory of each of the plurality of the surrounding vehicles and the traveling trajectory of the self-vehicle intersect (see paragraphs 54-60). Both Hagiwara and Kurehashi disclose vehicle intersection detection. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have recognized that deceleration/stopping are common vehicle behaviors at intersections due to traffic lights. Both Hagiwara and Kurehashi aim to identify intersections without map data, thus tracking self-vehicle dynamic behaviors at different locations provides an alternate method to identify candidate intersection locations. One motivation is to reduce the number of false positive intersection identifications which results in less data being stored in the device has outlined by Hagiwara (see abstract).
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
1/24/2026