DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 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 11, 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):
A vehicle control device comprising:
a receiver for receiving detection information related to a host vehicle and a surrounding vehicle; and
a controller configured to determine the presence of a cut-in candidate vehicle based on a cut-in intention determination result for the surrounding vehicle based on the detection information,
and determine the presence of a cut-in vehicle based on a position within a lane of the cut-in candidate vehicle if the cut-in candidate vehicle exists.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretations, this method is determining a presence of a cut-in vehicle based on a position within a lane of the cut-in candidate vehicle. 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 additional elements of receiving detection information related to a host vehicle and a surrounding vehicle. The step of receiving detection information related to a host vehicle and a surrounding vehicle 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 receiving detection information related to a host vehicle and a surrounding vehicle constitutes 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 § 102
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 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US20200189596).
Claim 1.
Kang teaches the following limitations:
A vehicle control device comprising:
a receiver for receiving detection information related to a host vehicle and a surrounding vehicle; and (Kang – [0046] the determination unit 300 may calculate the absolute position, the absolute velocity, and the absolute acceleration of each of the adjacent vehicles 2, 3, and 4 in further consideration of at least one of the position information or the vehicle information of the autonomous vehicle 1 received from the GPS sensor 130 and the vehicle sensor 140.)
a controller configured to determine the presence of a cut-in candidate vehicle based on a cut-in intention determination result for the surrounding vehicle based on the detection information, (Kang – [0056] The determination unit 300 may determine that a vehicle expected to cut into the traveling lane of the autonomous vehicle 1 is a candidate cut-in vehicle 2 a or 2 b in consideration of the road environment information requiring the lane change.)
and determine the presence of a cut-in vehicle based on a position within a lane of the cut-in candidate vehicle if the cut-in candidate vehicle exists. (Kang – [0080-0081] The determination unit 300 may calculate the longitudinal distance between the autonomous vehicle 1 and the at least one adjacent vehicles 2, 3, and 4 and the arrival time as a pre-processing procedure for controlling the driving of the autonomous vehicle 1 based on the position, the velocity, and the acceleration of each of the adjacent vehicles 2, 3, and 4, calculated at step S403, and may transmit the same to step S500 (S407). Subsequently, the determination unit 300 may compare the velocity of the autonomous vehicle 1, acquired through the vehicle sensor 140, with the velocity of each of the adjacent vehicles that travels behind the autonomous vehicle 1, calculated based on the traveling state information (S408), and may determine a candidate cut-in vehicle 2 (S409).)
Claim 2.
Kang teaches the following limitations:
The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the detection information includes at least one of an expected driving path of the host vehicle, a lateral speed of the surrounding vehicle, a heading angle of the surrounding vehicle, and lane information between the host vehicle and the surrounding vehicle. (Kang – [0010] searching, by a controller, for a potential cut-in space, which is determined based on the relative velocity of a preceding vehicle that is the closest to the autonomous vehicle among the at least one adjacent vehicle)
Claim 3.
Kang teaches the following limitations:
The vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the controller determines the surrounding vehicle as the cut-in candidate vehicle based on at least one of the expected driving path of the host vehicle, the lateral speed of the surrounding vehicle, and the heading angle of the surrounding vehicle. (Kang – [0010] searching, by a controller, for a potential cut-in space, which is determined based on the relative velocity of a preceding vehicle that is the closest to the autonomous vehicle among the at least one adjacent vehicle)
Claim 5.
Kang teaches the following limitations:
The vehicle control device of claim 2, wherein the controller determines the cut-in candidate vehicle as the cut-in vehicle based on the lateral speed of the surrounding vehicle and a distance from the surrounding vehicle to a reference line. (Kang – [0010] which is determined based on the relative velocity of a preceding vehicle that is the closest to the autonomous vehicle among the at least one adjacent vehicle and the distance between the preceding vehicle and the autonomous vehicle;)
Claim 8.
Kang teaches the following limitations:
The vehicle control device of claim 1, wherein the controller determines a changed driving speed of the host vehicle based on a relative speed of the host vehicle and the cut-in vehicle if the cut-in vehicle exists. (Kang – [0058] The controller 400 may search for a potential cut-in space A, which is determined based on the relative velocity of the preceding vehicle 3, which is the closest to the autonomous vehicle 1 among the adjacent vehicles 2, 3, and 4, and the distance between the preceding vehicle 3 and the autonomous vehicle 1, and may perform control such that the velocity of the autonomous vehicle 1 is decreased, increased, or maintained depending on whether the potential cut-in space A is present.)
Claim 9.
Kang teaches the following limitations:
The vehicle control device of claim 8, wherein the controller controls the host vehicle based on the changed driving speed. (Kang – [0058] The controller 400 may search for a potential cut-in space A, which is determined based on the relative velocity of the preceding vehicle 3, which is the closest to the autonomous vehicle 1 among the adjacent vehicles 2, 3, and 4, and the distance between the preceding vehicle 3 and the autonomous vehicle 1, and may perform control such that the velocity of the autonomous vehicle 1 is decreased, increased, or maintained depending on whether the potential cut-in space A is present.)
Claim 11.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 12.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 13.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 15.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 18.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 19.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
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 4, 6-7, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US20200189596) in view of Rajvanshi (US20170341647).
Claim 4.
Kang teaches the vehicle control device of claim 3, but fails to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein, if the lateral speed of the surrounding vehicle increases or a driving direction of the surrounding vehicle based on the heading angle overlaps with the expected driving path of the host vehicle, the controller determines the surrounding vehicle as the cut-in candidate vehicle.
However, Rajvanshi teaches:
wherein, if the lateral speed of the surrounding vehicle increases or a driving direction of the surrounding vehicle based on the heading angle overlaps with the expected driving path of the host vehicle, the controller determines the surrounding vehicle as the cut-in candidate vehicle.
(Rajvanshi – [0032] Additionally, or alternatively, the control module 40 may receive host vehicle readings from the vehicle sensors 20-26 that are representative of, or that correspond to, values of certain conditions/parameters, such as, a host vehicle velocity, a relative velocity with respect to a target vehicle, a relative distance with respect to a target vehicle, an actual target vehicle velocity, and/or an identification of a lane in which a target vehicle 14 or the host vehicle 12 is located.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kang with Rajvanshi in order to predict a lane cutout maneuver by the host vehicle or leading target vehicle. (Rajvanshi – [0004])
Claim 6.
Kang teaches the vehicle control device of claim 5, but Kang fails to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the controller determines the cut-in candidate vehicle as the cut-in vehicle if the lateral speed exceeds a first threshold and the distance is less than or equal to a second threshold.
However, Rajvanshi teaches:
The vehicle control device of claim 5, wherein the controller determines the cut-in candidate vehicle as the cut-in vehicle if the lateral speed exceeds a first threshold and the distance is less than or equal to a second threshold. (Rajvanshi – [0036] For example, if the relative lateral position (xlat) between the host vehicle and the leading target vehicle 14 1 is more than a threshold amount, the automated driving system 10 may predict that a cutout maneuver by either the target vehicle 14 1 or the host vehicle 12 is taking place.; Other techniques for predicting a lane cutout maneuver based at least partially on relative lateral position xlat may be used, including using relative lateral velocity vlat or other parameters derived from xlat. Of course, yaw rate, steering wheel angle, and other vehicle parameters may also be used in this lane cutout prediction.)
See claim 5 for a statement of obviousness rationale.
Claim 7.
Kang teaches the vehicle control device of claim 5, but Kang fails to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein the distance from the surrounding vehicle to the reference line is determined based on the position within the lane of the surrounding vehicle, wherein the position within the lane of the surrounding vehicle is determined based on the lane information between the host vehicle and the surrounding vehicle.
However, Rajvanshi teaches:
The vehicle control device of claim 5, wherein the distance from the surrounding vehicle to the reference line is determined based on the position within the lane of the surrounding vehicle, wherein the position within the lane of the surrounding vehicle is determined based on the lane information between the host vehicle and the surrounding vehicle. (Rajvanshi – [0042] In one embodiment of step 242, the distances xleft and xright are obtained from lane marking sensors 34 and 36, respectively, and are the distances between some reference point on the host vehicle 12 and the nearest lane marker on the respective side of the host vehicle, as shown in FIG. 1. After these distances are obtained, as may be the case in step 220, then the two distances are compared to one another.)
See claim 5 for a statement of obviousness rationale.
Claim 14.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 16.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 17.
Rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 10 and 20 are objected for its dependency on the rejected base claim, but would otherwise be allowable if rewritten to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The allowable subject matter found in the claim that have not been found to have been adequately taught or disclosed in the prior art found at this time are all the limitations as specifically claimed.
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