DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “risk calculation unit, probability estimation unit, and emotion estimation unit” in claims 1 and 3-4.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “risk calculation unit, probability estimation unit, and emotion estimation unit” in claims 1 and 3-4 use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
risk calculation unit, probability estimation unit, and emotion estimation unit: [0024] – “The first processor 30 includes a risk calculation unit 35, an emotion estimation unit 36, and a probability estimation unit 37 as functional elements or functional units”
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. l 12(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 § 101
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a method or an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES) The examiner has identified claim 1, which substantially includes all the limitations of claim 9, as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
An action probability estimation device comprising:
a risk calculation unit that calculates a risk index value as a numerical value representing a degree of magnitude of a collision risk between a traffic participant around a target vehicle and the target vehicle; and
a probability estimation unit that estimates, on the basis of the risk index value and a driver characteristic as a characteristic of a driver of the target vehicle, an action probability as a probability that the driver executes a predetermined steering action, which is determined in advance, in the target vehicle,
wherein the driver characteristic includes a confidence level as a numerical value representing a degree of a level of confidence of the driver regarding his/her driving skill, and a situational daring level as a numerical value indicating a degree of magnitude of a tendency of the driver to carry out an action while knowing that it is dangerous.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretations, this system is estimating an action probability. If the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitations entails performance in the human mind, then it falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claims are abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite an additional element of calculating a risk index value. The step of calculating a risk index value is recited at a high level of generality and do not comprise any of the above additional elements that individually or in combination, have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the step of calculating a risk index value constitute mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. There are no additional elements that 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. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are 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 because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept-rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 and similarly other independent claims are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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 1, 2, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lassoued (US20190011910) in view of Peng (US20220306147) and further in view of Hirose (JP2009134496)
Claim 1.
Lassoued teaches the following limitations:
An action probability estimation device comprising:
a risk calculation unit that calculates a risk index value as a numerical value representing a degree of magnitude of a collision risk between a traffic participant around a target vehicle and the target vehicle; and (Lassoued – [0068] For example, the computer system 12, using the behavior parameters component 410 and the risk assessment component 412, may cognitively determine or assess the risk associated with a journey by one or more sensors associated with the sensor component 416. That is, the critical driver specific parameters or “contextual factors” (e.g., driver reaction time, driver time headway, driver aggressiveness, standard deviation of a driver time to collision distribution)
a situational daring level as a numerical value indicating a degree of magnitude of a tendency of the driver to carry out an action while knowing that it is dangerous. (Lassoued – [0068] or example, the machine learning model may learn that during heavy traffic conditions in the late afternoon (e.g., “rush hour traffic” around 5:00 p.m.), a vehicle operator displays increased biometric activity (e.g., increased heart rate) and aggressive driving behavior (e.g., “road rage”) by failing to signal, abrupt lane changes, or other unsafe driving patterns. Accordingly, a vehicle operator profile of the driving risk assessment system 430 may be created, defined, stored, and maintained in the machine learning module 406, the factors and/or parameters 404, or both; [0079] θc is a vector of the behavioral parameters (e.g., lane change aggressiveness, politeness factor, maximum speed, maximum acceleration, comfortable deceleration, reaction time, safe time headway, etc.) associated with the driver in a given context c)
Lassoued does not explicitly teach the following limitations: a probability estimation unit that estimates, on the basis of the risk index value and a driver characteristic as a characteristic of a driver of the target vehicle, an action probability as a probability that the driver executes a predetermined steering action, which is determined in advance, in the target vehicle. However, Peng teaches:
a probability estimation unit that estimates, on the basis of the risk index value and a driver characteristic as a characteristic of a driver of the target vehicle, an action probability as a probability that the driver executes a predetermined steering action, which is determined in advance, in the target vehicle, (Peng – [0072] Referring to FIGS. 1-3, an exemplary flow for producing a regression curve is illustrated. More specifically, FIGS. 1-3 illustrate a logistic regression curve indicative of a probability of performing a left turn based on time-to-collision (TTC). The regression curve can be generated based on human drivers causing a vehicle to perform the vehicle maneuver. For example, a human driver can drive a vehicle to make a left turn. In some embodiments, the regression curve can be indicative of a probability of other vehicle maneuvers)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lassoued with Peng in order to provide improved driver assist systems and methods such as the adaptive cruise control system, traffic jam assist systems, and lane change assist systems. (Peng – [0006])
Lassoued does not explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the driver characteristic includes a confidence level as a numerical value representing a degree of a level of confidence of the driver regarding his/her driving skill. However, Hirose teaches:
wherein the driver characteristic includes a confidence level as a numerical value representing a degree of a level of confidence of the driver regarding his/her driving skill, and (Hirose –[0020] The confidence level determination means 40 has a subjective confidence level calculation unit 41 and determines the driver's confidence level in his/her driving skill based on the driver's input information. In this embodiment, the driver's confidence level is the driver's self evaluation of his or her own driving skill. The subjective confidence calculation unit 41 determines the driver's confidence level based on speech input from the driver. [0024] The results of these confidence level determinations can be converted into numerical values and output to the mode determination means 50)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lassoued with Hirose in order to determine the driver's confidence level in his/her driving skill based on the driver's input information. (Hirose – [0020])
Claim 2.
The combination of Lassoued, Peng, and Hirose teaches the action probability estimation device according to claim 1, and Lassoued further teaches:
wherein the confidence level and the situational daring level are calculated in advance for each individual to be the driver, and are stored as a part of the driver characteristic in a storage device. (Lassoued – [0065] The factors and/or parameters database 404 may also include vehicle operator profiles for each operator of a vehicle associated with the driving risk assessment system 430 and/or sensor devices associated with a sensor component 416)
Claim 5.
The combination of Lassoued, Peng, and Hirose teaches the action probability estimation device according to claim 1, and Peng further teaches:
The action probability estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the action probability is estimated using a logistic regression model (logistic function). (Peng – [0072] Referring to FIGS. 1-3, an exemplary flow for producing a regression curve is illustrated. More specifically, FIGS. 1-3 illustrate a logistic regression curve indicative of a probability of performing a left turn based on time-to-collision (TTC). The regression curve can be generated based on human drivers causing a vehicle to perform the vehicle maneuver. For example, a human driver can drive a vehicle to make a left turn. In some embodiments, the regression curve can be indicative of a probability of other vehicle maneuvers)
See claim 1 for a statement of obviousness rationale.
Claim 6.
The combination of Lassoued, Peng, and Hirose teaches the action probability estimation device according to claim 1, and Peng further teaches:
The action probability estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined steering action is a lane change action of changing a traveling lane of the target vehicle. (Peng – [0082] In some embodiments, the first regression curve 500 and the second regression curve 504 can be generated for different types of vehicles executing a driving maneuver such as a vehicle following maneuver, a lane-centering maneuver, a lane merge maneuver, and/or a collision avoidance maneuver (e.g., a braking maneuver and/or a lane change maneuver).)
See claim 1 for a statement of obviousness rationale.
Claim 9.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lassoued (US20190011910) in view of Peng (US20220306147), further in view of Hirose (JP2009134496), and further in view of Ito (JP2022121930).
Claim 3.
The combination of Lassoued, Peng, and Hirose teaches the action probability estimation device according to claim 1, but Lassoued does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
The action probability estimation device according to claim 1, further comprising an emotion estimation unit that calculates an emotion level as a numerical value representing a degree of magnitude of an unpleasant emotion felt by the driver, wherein the probability estimation unit estimates the action probability on the basis of the driver characteristic, the risk index value, and the emotion level.
However, Ito further teaches:
The action probability estimation device according to claim 1, further comprising an emotion estimation unit that calculates an emotion level as a numerical value representing a degree of magnitude of an unpleasant emotion felt by the driver, wherein the probability estimation unit estimates the action probability on the basis of the driver characteristic, the risk index value, and the emotion level. (Ito – [0012] In other words, the expected value stored in the database can be updated based on the
emotional state indicating the user's mental activity, and the risk value stored in the database
can be updated based on the user's psychological state indicating the user's level of tension; [0020] That is, the system may further include a function for updating the expected value stored in
the database based on the emotional state indicating the level of mental activity of the user,
and a function for updating the risk value stored in the database based on the psychological
state indicating the level of tension of the user. In this case, it is preferable to set the expected
value and risk value to appropriate values according to the current tendency of the user.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lassoued with Ito in order to update the risk value based on the psychological state. (Ito – [0020])
Claim 4.
The combination of Lassoued, Peng, Hirose, and Ito teaches the action probability estimation device according to claim 3, but Lassoued does not explicitly teach the following limitations:
The action probability estimation device according to claim 3, wherein the emotion estimation unit calculates an emotion level on the basis of physiological data of the driver and/or an action schedule of the driver.
However, Ito further teaches:
The action probability estimation device according to claim 3, wherein the emotion estimation unit calculates an emotion level on the basis of physiological data of the driver and/or an action schedule of the driver. (Ito – [0020] That is, the system may further include a function for updating the expected value stored in the database based on the emotional state indicating the level of mental activity of the user, and a function for updating the risk value stored in the database based on the psychological state indicating the level of tension of the user. In this case, it is preferable to set the expected value and risk value to appropriate values according to the current tendency of the user)
See claim 3 for a statement of obviousness rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are objected for their dependency on the rejected base claim, but would otherwise be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art Lassoued (US20190011910) discloses computing systems, and more particularly to, various embodiments for monitoring risk associated with operating a vehicle in relation to a journey using sensing information gathered from sensing devices by a processor. However, the prior art does not explicitly disclose the risk index value is represented by a forward collision margin time that is a time to collision between a preceding vehicle, which is the traffic participant and travels in front of the target vehicle, and the target vehicle, and a backward collision margin time that is a time to collision between a following vehicle, which is the traffic participant and travels behind the target vehicle, and the target vehicle. Further, the prior art does not explicitly disclose in a case where the backward collision margin time is less than a predetermined first time threshold value, the notification device performs an attention calling notification with a first level in the target vehicle and the following vehicle when the action probability of the target vehicle is less than a predetermined probability threshold value, and performs an attention calling notification with a second level having a higher salience level than the attention calling notification with the first level when the action probability of the target vehicle is equal or greater than the probability threshold value.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT FENG whose telephone number is (703)756-4715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-7691. 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.
/VINCENT FENG/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669