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 .
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.
This application includes a claim limitation that does not use the word “means,” but is nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation 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. The claim limitation is:
“a self-position detecting device that detects a self-position of the vehicle” in claim 8
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification reveals the following:
the “self-position detecting device” is formed by a combination of sensors in at least [0025] in the specification.
This is adequate structure to perform the claimed function, so no 112 rejections are given and no further action is required by applicant with respect to this 112(f) interpretation.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of describing driving patterns, gathering data during driving, and determining what a value of a parameter should be based on the data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recites A setting method of turning characteristics of an automated vehicle driving system, the method comprising:
automatically generating driving patterns for acquisition of a parameter of turning characteristics;
acquiring data concerning the turning characteristics of a vehicle through automated driving of the vehicle with the generated driving patterns; and
setting the parameter based on the acquired data.
The claim recites a series of steps and therefore is directed to a process, which satisfies step 1 of the Section 101 analysis. Under the two-prong inquiry, the claim is eligible at revised step 2A unless: Prong One: the claim recites a judicial exception; and Prong Two: the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception.
The above claim steps are directed to the concept of describing driving patterns, gathering data during driving, and determining what a value of a parameter should be based on the data, which is an abstract idea that can be performed by a user mentally or manually and falls within the Mental Processes grouping. (Prong one: YES, recites an abstract idea).
Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed entirely by a human. (Prong Two: NO, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application similar to that shown in MPEP 2106.05).
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept.
Examiner’s note to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome the 101 rejections by adding the following limitation to the end of claim 1:
“and controlling driving of the vehicle based on the parameter.”
That is because affirmative recitation of this step would integrate the claim into the practical application of controlling driving of a vehicle, which is something that a user cannot do mentally or manually.
Regarding claim 2, applicant recites The setting method of turning characteristics according to claim 1, wherein the automated vehicle driving system is configured by installing an automated driving robot on the vehicle.
However, this is merely reciting that a computer is placed on the vehicle, which does not change that all of the aforementioned functions performed by that computer can be performed mentally or manually by a human.
Moreover, other than reciting the use of the automated driving robot, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being performed entirely by a human. The use of one or more computing devices is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Prong Two: NO, does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application similar to that shown in MPEP 2106.05).
Under step 2B, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that are indicative of an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The automated driving robot is described in at least paragraphs [0019]-[0022] of applicant’s specification, but nowhere in the specification does it appear to be the case that this “robot” is anything more than a generic computer which sends signals to induce the vehicle to perform functions. Therefore these additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The recitation of generic processors/computers does not take the above limitations out of the mental processes grouping.
Moreover, the implementation of the abstract idea on generic computers and/or generic computer components does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claims merely invoke the additional elements as tools that are being used in their ordinary capacity. Further, the courts have found that simply limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment does not add significantly more. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Regarding claim 3, applicant recites The setting method of turning characteristics according to claim 1, wherein a driving area for the automated driving with the driving patterns is acquired by a driver's driving of the vehicle along a perimeter of the driving area before automatically generating the driving patterns, and then the driving patterns are automatically generated in the driving area.
However, a human can mentally or manually generate this area, before patterns are generated in the area.
Regarding claim 4, applicant recites The setting method of turning characteristics according to claim 3, wherein the parameter is a turning curvature or a turning radius of the vehicle relative to a steering angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle.
However, a human can mentally or manually measure and determine possible values for these parameters.
Regarding claim 5, applicant recites The setting method of turning characteristics according to claim 3, wherein the parameter is a yaw rate of the vehicle relative to a steering angle of a steering wheel of the vehicle.
However, a human can mentally or manually measure and determine possible values for these parameters.
Regarding claim 6, applicant recites The setting method of turning characteristics according to claim 3, wherein the parameter is a time constant for a response delay of a yaw rate of the vehicle.
However, a human can mentally or manually measure and determine possible values for these parameters.
Regarding claim 7, applicant recites The setting method of turning characteristics according to claim 3, wherein the parameter is a stability factor concerning turning of the vehicle.
However, a human can mentally or manually measure and determine possible values for these parameters.
Examiner’s note to help applicant overcome the 101 rejections: applicant can overcome the 101 rejections by adding the following limitation to the end of claim 1:
“and controlling driving of the vehicle based on the parameter.”
That is because affirmative recitation of this step would integrate the claim into the practical application of controlling driving of a vehicle, which is something that a user cannot do mentally or manually.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US 20210080956 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kang. Where appropriate, claims with similar limitations are grouped together for legibility and all claims in each group are understood to be rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kang discloses An automated vehicle driving system (See at least Fig. 2 in Kang: Kang discloses a detailed configuration diagram of a behavior control device for an autonomous vehicle [See at least Kang, 0058]) comprising:
a steering robot that rotates a steering wheel of a vehicle (Kang discloses that When the autonomous vehicle is driving at a high speed (for example, more than 80 kph), the controller 40 may predict a behavior pattern of the autonomous vehicle by applying fusion data according to the driving environment at the current time point, the steering wheel angle value of the autonomous vehicle at the current time point, and the route information on the precise map at the current time point to the learning result of the learning device 30 and derive a steering control value of the autonomous vehicle based on the predicted behavior pattern of the autonomous vehicle at a reference period (e.g., 10 ms) [See at least Kang, 0056]. Kang further discloses that The controller 40 may transmit a steering control value of the autonomous vehicle derived in the above-described manner to the sub-controller (e.g., a steering controller) at a reference period when the autonomous vehicle is driving at high speed (e.g., greater than 80 kph) [See at least Kang, 0057]. Also see at least Fig. 5 in Kang: Kang discloses that the controller 40 may control the behavior of the autonomous vehicle based on the learning result of the learning device 30 (502) [See at least Kang, 0088]. Kang further discloses that the controller 40 may derive the speed control value of the autonomous vehicle from the learning result of the learning device 30 in the low speed situation, and drive the steering control of the autonomous vehicle from the learning result of the learning device 30 in the high speed situation [See at least Kang, 0088]. This action by the controller and the steering control may broadly be regarded as implementing a “steering robot”);
a self-position detecting device that detects a self-position of the vehicle (See at least Fig. 2 in Kang: Kang discloses that the learning device 30 may learn the training data input through the input device 20 based on deep learning [See at least Kang, 0049]. Kang further discloses that, In this case, the training data may include fusion data obtained by fusing pieces of sensor data measured by a plurality of sensors mounted in the autonomous vehicle, a steering wheel angle of the autonomous vehicle, and route information on a precise map [See at least Kang, 0049]); and
a controller that controls the automated vehicle driving system (See at least Fig. 1 in Kang: Kang discloses that a behavior control device 100 for an autonomous vehicle in some forms of the present disclosure may include storage 10, an input device 20, a learning device 30, and a controller 40 [See at least Kang, 0043]. The entire behavior control device 100 may be regarded as applicant’s controller. See at least Fig. 5 in Kang: Kang discloses that the controller 40 may control the behavior of the autonomous vehicle based on the learning result of the learning device 30 (502) [See at least Kang, 0088]),
wherein the controller is configured to automatically generate driving patterns for acquisition of a parameter of turning characteristics (See at least Fig. 5 in Kang: Kang discloses that the learning device 30 may perform deep learning of the behavior pattern of the vehicle according to a driving environment (501) [See at least Kang, 0087]. Kang further discloses that Kang further discloses that the controller 40 may derive the speed control value of the autonomous vehicle from the learning result of the learning device 30 in the low speed situation, and drive the steering control of the autonomous vehicle from the learning result of the learning device 30 in the high speed situation [See at least Kang, 0088]. The autonomous control of the vehicle in the low speed situation may be regarded as one example of a “driving pattern”, since it is a state in which training data is gathered), to acquire data concerning the turning characteristics of the vehicle by using the self-position detecting device while driving the vehicle automatedly with the generated driving patterns (Kang further discloses that the controller 40 may derive the speed control value of the autonomous vehicle from the learning result of the learning device 30 in the low speed situation, and drive the steering control of the autonomous vehicle from the learning result of the learning device 30 in the high speed situation [See at least Kang, 0088]) by controlling the steering robot (See at least Fig. 2 in Kang: Kang discloses that the learning device 30 may learn the training data input through the input device 20 based on deep learning [See at least Kang, 0049]. Kang further discloses that, In this case, the training data may include fusion data obtained by fusing pieces of sensor data measured by a plurality of sensors mounted in the autonomous vehicle, a steering wheel angle of the autonomous vehicle, and route information on a precise map [See at least Kang, 0049]. So steering wheel angle is controlled during this training data gathering phase), and to set the parameter based on the acquired data (Kang further discloses that the controller 40 may derive the speed control value of the autonomous vehicle from the learning result of the learning device 30 in the low speed situation, and drive the steering control of the autonomous vehicle from the learning result of the learning device 30 in the high speed situation [See at least Kang, 0088]).
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20210080956 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20210276562 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kang and Suzuki, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Kang discloses The setting method of turning characteristics according to claim 1.
However, Kang does not explicitly teach the method wherein the automated vehicle driving system is configured by installing an automated driving robot on the vehicle.
However, Suzuki does teach an autonomous driving system wherein the automated vehicle driving system is configured by installing an automated driving robot on the vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 in Suzuki: Suzuki teaches that Vehicle 10 can carry out autonomous driving in accordance with commands from ADK 200 attached to vehicle main body 100 [See at least Suzuki, 0041]. Suzuki further teaches that Though FIG. 1 shows vehicle main body 100 and ADK 200 at positions distant from each other, ADK 200 is actually attached to a rooftop or the like of vehicle main body 100 [See at least Suzuki, 0041]. Suzuki further teaches that ADK 200 can also be removed from vehicle main body 100 [See at least Suzuki, 0041]. Suzuki further teaches that While ADK 200 is not attached, vehicle main body 100 can travel by manual driving by a user [See at least Suzuki, 0041]). Both Kang and Suzuki teach automated driving systems. However, only Kang explicitly teaches where the system is configured by installing an automated driving robot onto an existing vehicle.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automated driving system of Kang to also be configured by installing an automated driving robot onto an existing vehicle, as in Suzuki. This improves convenience by allowing existing vehicles to be turned into autonomous vehicles by the simple attachment of the robot.
Regarding claim 9, Kang discloses The automated vehicle driving system according to claim 8.
However, Kang does not explicitly teach the system wherein the steering robot is post-installed on the vehicle.
However, Suzuki does teach an automated vehicle driving system wherein the steering robot is post-installed on the vehicle (See at least Fig. 1 in Suzuki: Suzuki teaches that Vehicle 10 can carry out autonomous driving in accordance with commands from ADK 200 attached to vehicle main body 100 [See at least Suzuki, 0041]. Suzuki further teaches that Though FIG. 1 shows vehicle main body 100 and ADK 200 at positions distant from each other, ADK 200 is actually attached to a rooftop or the like of vehicle main body 100 [See at least Suzuki, 0041]. Suzuki further teaches that ADK 200 can also be removed from vehicle main body 100 [See at least Suzuki, 0041]. Suzuki further teaches that While ADK 200 is not attached, vehicle main body 100 can travel by manual driving by a user [See at least Suzuki, 0041]). Both Kang and Suzuki teach automated driving systems. However, only Kang explicitly teaches where the system is configured by installing an automated driving robot onto an existing vehicle.
It would have been obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the automated driving system of Kang to also be configured by installing an automated driving robot onto an existing vehicle, as in Suzuki. This improves convenience by allowing existing vehicles to be turned into autonomous vehicles by the simple attachment of the robot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
The closest prior art of record is Kang (US 20210080956 A1). The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Kang discloses The setting method of turning characteristics according to claim 1.
However, none of the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the method wherein a driving area for the automated driving with the driving patterns is acquired by a driver's driving of the vehicle along a perimeter of the driving area before automatically generating the driving patterns, and then the driving patterns are automatically generated in the driving area.
In order for a reference to read on these limitations, the reference would have to teach where, in order to generate driving patterns for a region which will be executed autonomously in order to gather turning characteristic data, the perimeter of the region must first be traced out manually by a user who manually drives the vehicle around the perimeter. This is not taught by the prior art of record.
While Kang teaches gathering and learning driving characteristic data of a vehicle with respect to turns while the vehicle drive autonomously (See at least [Kang, 0088]), because this learning of Kang is performed using autonomous test driving, Kang never contemplates defining the region in which this autonomous test driving will be performed by requiring the user to manually drive the vehicle around the perimeter of the region. This is simply not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
None of the other prior art of record remedies this deficiency of Kang.
For at least the above stated reasons, claim 3 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claims 4-7, these claims also contain allowable subject matter at least by virtue of their dependence from claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEEM T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571) 272-1516. 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.
/NAEEM TASLIM ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668