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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on October 1, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an operation route generation unit that calculates an operation route to a destination of the vehicle in claims 1 & 14 structure is found in the specification [0017] as having a CPU and RAM to achieve the functional units.
an observation area switching position calculation unit that calculates an observation area switching position at which the observation area is switched from a first observation area to a second observation area when the operation route intersects with a travel route of other moving body in claims 1-2, 4-6, & 14 structure is found in the specification [0017] as having a CPU and RAM to achieve the functional units.
an observation area calculation unit that calculates the second observation area corresponding to the observation area switching position in claims 1, 3, & 14 structure is found in the specification [0017] as having a CPU and RAM to achieve the functional units.
a scenario generation unit that generates a plurality of evaluation scenarios that are different in a predetermined environmental condition for the operation route in claim 1 structure is found in the specification [0017] as having a CPU and RAM to achieve the functional units.
a recognition determination unit that determines a success or failure of recognition of the other moving body positioned in the second observation area by simulating a sensing of the second observation area by a sensor mounted to the vehicle under the environmental condition for each of the evaluation scenarios in claims 1, 7, & 9 structure is found in the specification [0017] as having a CPU and RAM to achieve the functional units.
a risk map generation unit that aggregates results of the success or failure of recognition of the other moving body in the second observation area for the plurality of evaluation scenarios and generates a risk map indicating a blind spot in the second observation area superimposed on the second observation area in claims 1, 8, & 14 structure is found in the specification [0017] as having a CPU and RAM to achieve the functional units.
a route deviation amount estimation unit that calculates a position error and an orientation error of the vehicle with respect to the operation route in claim 7 structure is found in the specification [0017] as having a CPU and RAM to achieve the functional units.
a blind spot drawing unit that displays the risk map with the second observation area superimposed thereon in claims 14-15 structure is found in the specification [0017] as having a CPU and RAM to achieve the functional units.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a blind spot estimation device (i.e. an apparatus). Claim 14 is directed to a traveling environment generation device (i.e. an apparatus). Therefore, claims 1-15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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.
In this case independent claims 1 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Since independent claims 1 & 14 have minor differences, the additional limitation of claim 14 is also shown below. Claims 1 & 14 recites:
Claim 1:
A blind spot estimation device configured to set an observation area and estimate a blind spot in the observation area of a vehicle that performs autonomous driving on the basis of data acquired by sensing the observation area by a sensor, the blind spot estimation device comprising:
an operation route generation unit that calculates an operation route to a destination of the vehicle;
an observation area switching position calculation unit that calculates an observation area switching position at which the observation area is switched from a first observation area to a second observation area when the operation route intersects with a travel route of other moving body;
an observation area calculation unit that calculates the second observation area corresponding to the observation area switching position;
a scenario generation unit that generates a plurality of evaluation scenarios that are different in a predetermined environmental condition for the operation route;
a recognition determination unit that determines a success or failure of recognition of the other moving body positioned in the second observation area by simulating a sensing of the second observation area by a sensor mounted to the vehicle under the environmental condition for each of the evaluation scenarios; and
a risk map generation unit that aggregates results of the success or failure of recognition of the other moving body in the second observation area for the plurality of evaluation scenarios and generates a risk map indicating a blind spot in the second observation area superimposed on the second observation area.
Claim 14
a blind spot drawing unit that displays the risk map with the second observation area superimposed thereon.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “calculates an operation route to a destination of the vehicle”, “calculates an observation area switching position at which the observation area is switched from a first observation area to a second observation area when the operation route intersects with a travel route of other moving body”, and “calculates the second observation area corresponding to the observation area switching position” in the context of this claim encompasses mathematically analyzing data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. “generates a plurality of evaluation scenarios that are different in a predetermined environmental condition for the operation route” in the context of this claim encompasses listing scenarios. “determines a success or failure of recognition of the other moving body positioned in the second observation area by simulating a sensing of the second observation area by a sensor mounted to the vehicle under the environmental condition for each of the evaluation scenarios” in the context of this claim encompasses evaluating if a scenario results in a blind spot. “aggregates results of the success or failure of recognition of the other moving body in the second observation area for the plurality of evaluation scenarios and generates a risk map indicating a blind spot in the second observation area superimposed on the second observation area” in the context of this claim encompasses organizing results. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 14, which is of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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 idea 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”):
Claim 1:
A blind spot estimation device configured to set an observation area and estimate a blind spot in the observation area of a vehicle that performs autonomous driving on the basis of data acquired by sensing the observation area by a sensor, the blind spot estimation device comprising:
an operation route generation unit that calculates an operation route to a destination of the vehicle;
an observation area switching position calculation unit that calculates an observation area switching position at which the observation area is switched from a first observation area to a second observation area when the operation route intersects with a travel route of other moving body;
an observation area calculation unit that calculates the second observation area corresponding to the observation area switching position;
a scenario generation unit that generates a plurality of evaluation scenarios that are different in a predetermined environmental condition for the operation route;
a recognition determination unit that determines a success or failure of recognition of the other moving body positioned in the second observation area by simulating a sensing of the second observation area by a sensor mounted to the vehicle under the environmental condition for each of the evaluation scenarios; and
a risk map generation unit that aggregates results of the success or failure of recognition of the other moving body in the second observation area for the plurality of evaluation scenarios and generates a risk map indicating a blind spot in the second observation area superimposed on the second observation area.
Claim 14
a blind spot drawing unit that displays the risk map with the second observation area superimposed thereon.
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 “displays the risk map with the second observation area superimposed thereon” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic processors to perform the processes. In particular the “display” step amount to showing results on a screen, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The an operation route generation unit, an observation area switching position calculation unit, an observation area calculation unit, a scenario generation unit, a recognition determination unit, a risk map generation unit, and a blind spot drawing unit merely describes how to generally “apply” and “display” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components in a vehicle control environment.
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 computer 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 – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 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 “displays the risk map with the second observation area superimposed thereon” 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 “displays the risk map with the second observation area superimposed thereon” 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 “displays the risk map with the second observation area superimposed thereon” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 indicate that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation 14 does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as mentioned in MPEP 2106.05(h). Hence claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claim 14 is also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 1 rejection.
Dependent claims 1-11 & 15 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 1-11 & 15, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. However, claims 12-15 which involving controlling the vehicle as a result of the limitations of claim 1 would overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. Accordingly claims 1-11 & 14-15 are patent ineligible.
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, 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0118144 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Yoshihira.
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshihira discloses A blind spot estimation device configured to set an observation area and estimate a blind spot in the observation area of a vehicle that performs autonomous driving on the basis of data acquired by sensing the observation area by a sensor, the blind spot estimation device comprising (Yoshihira [0028], Examiner Note: Yoshihira discloses determining blind spots for a vehicle given observing an area of a map required by a sensor):
an operation route generation unit that calculates an operation route to a destination of the vehicle (Yoshihira [0025]-[0026] & Fig. 2, Examiner Note: Yoshihira discloses a route calculator, 24 which computes a traveling route (i.e. operation route) during operation);
an observation area switching position calculation unit that calculates an observation area switching position at which the observation area is switched from a first observation area to a second observation area when the operation route intersects with a travel route of other moving; an observation area calculation unit that calculates the second observation area corresponding to the observation area switching position body (Yoshihira [0044] & Fig. 4(a)-4(c), Examiner Note: Yoshihira discloses a visibility proportion calculator 28 (i.e. observation area switching position calculation unit and observation area calculation unit) which at time B the vehicle sees observation frames 31 which overlaps with blind spot 33 (i.e. first observation area). At time C, the vehicle sees observation frame 31 which contains no overlap with blind spot 33 (i.e. second observation area) since 33 is now entirely observed wherein the position of time C of the vehicle (i.e. observation area switching position) is right before the vehicle crosses the street (i.e. travel route of other moving body));
a scenario generation unit that generates a plurality of evaluation scenarios that are different in a predetermined environmental condition for the operation route (Yoshihira [0050] & Fig. 3, Examiner Note: Yoshihira discloses a proportion determining unit (i.e. scenario generation unit) which determines whether the current coping behavior is the blind spot coping behavior or normal coping behavior (i.e. plurality of evaluation scenarios) with regards to the calculated blind spot overlap. [0079]-[0081], Examiner Note: Yoshihira further discloses the environment around the host vehicle such as weather effecting the close observation detecting criterion (i.e. observation area) which is used in the process));
a recognition determination unit that determines a success or failure of recognition of the other moving body positioned in the second observation area by simulating a sensing of the second observation area by a sensor mounted to the vehicle under the environmental condition for each of the evaluation scenarios (Yoshihira [0052] & Fig. 3, Examiner Note: Yoshihira discloses determining the risk (i.e. success or failure) of contact of making contact with a moving object using the sensor data acquired during the process of determining if the coping behavior should be switched); and
a risk map generation unit that aggregates results of the success or failure of recognition of the other moving body in the second observation area for the plurality of evaluation scenarios and generates a risk map indicating a blind spot in the second observation area superimposed on the second observation area (Yoshihira [0077] & Fig. 8, Examiner Note: Yoshihira discloses a map which determines accident probability (i.e. risk map) based on the blind spot area (i.e. second observation area)) which is drawn over both observation areas.
With respect to Claim 10, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 10 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 12, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 12 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 12, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 12. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 12.
With respect to Claim 14, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 14 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1 aside from those discussed below. Therefore, claim 14 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 & 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0118144 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Yoshihira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0144201 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 2, as shown above, Yoshihira discloses The blind spot estimation device according to claim 1, wherein
However, Yoshihira does not specifically disclose the observation area switching position calculation unit calculates a position going back the operation route by an amount of a predetermined distance from a position of an intersection point of the operation route and the travel route as the observation area switching position.
Watanabe, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the observation area switching position calculation unit calculates a position going back the operation route by an amount of a predetermined distance from a position of an intersection point of the operation route and the travel route as the observation area switching position (Watanabe [0097] & Fig. 14, Examiner Note: Watanabe discloses when there is an another vehicle intersection (i.e. intersection point) along the host vehicle route, the stop line (i.e. position going back the route by a predetermined distance) of the intersection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the occlusion control device of Yoshihira with the stopping position of Watanabe in order to allow an appropriate degree of risk of collision (Watanabe [0085]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshihira discloses The blind spot estimation device according to claim 1, wherein
Yoshihira further discloses …and calculates the observation area switching position for each of the groups (Yoshihira [0044] & Fig. 4(c), Examiner Note: Yoshihira discloses the position at time C of which there is a switch between area 31 and the combination of 31 and 33).
However, Yoshihira does not specifically disclose when the operation route intersects with each of a plurality of the travel routes and there are a plurality of the intersection points of the operation route and the travel route, the observation area switching position calculation unit divides the plurality of intersection points into groups, and calculates the observation area switching position for each of the groups.
Watanabe teaches when the operation route intersects with each of a plurality of the travel routes and there are a plurality of the intersection points of the operation route and the travel route, the observation area switching position calculation unit divides the plurality of intersection points into groups (Watanabe [0039]-[0041] & Fig. 4A-Fig. 4B, Examiner Note: Watanabe teaches host vehicle route (i.e. operation route) intersecting with other vehicle’s routes (i.e. travel route) which then divides the areas within the intersection up into multiple obstacle detection frames (i.e. groups)), (Watanabe [0084] & Figs. 10 & 11)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the occlusion control device of Yoshihira with the grouping of obstacle detection frames of Watanabe in order to allow an appropriate degree of risk of collision (Watanabe [0085]).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshihira in view of Watanabe teaches The blind spot estimation device according to claim 4, wherein
However, the modification does not specifically teach the travel route includes at least two types of a travel route of a vehicle or a travel route of a pedestrian, and the observation area switching position calculation unit divides the plurality of intersection points into the groups depending on the type of the travel route intersecting with the operation route.
Watanabe further teaches the travel route includes at least two types of a travel route of a vehicle or a travel route of a pedestrian, and the observation area switching position calculation unit divides the plurality of intersection points into the groups depending on the type of the travel route intersecting with the operation route (Watanabe [0049] & Fig. 6(a), Examiner Note: Watanabe teaches both vehicle and pedestrian observation frames which are drawn depending on how the intersect with the vehicle route).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the occlusion control device of Yoshihira with having multiple types of observation frames of Watanabe in order to allow an appropriate degree of risk of collision based on if it is with a vehicle or pedestrian (Watanabe [0032]).
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0118144 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Yoshihira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0185330 A1, to Boydston et al., hereafter Boydston.
Regarding Claim 3, as shown above, 1 discloses The blind spot estimation device according to claim 1, wherein
However, Yoshihira does not specifically disclose the observation area calculation unit calculates a position of the second observation area in a first direction on the basis of a position of an intersection point of the operation route and the travel route when a direction parallel to the travel route is the first direction, and calculates a width of the second observation area in the first direction on the basis of a moving speed of the other moving body, a time from passing through the observation area switching position to passing through the second observation area, an acquisition cycle of sensor data of the sensor, and a processing time of object recognition.
Boydston, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the observation area calculation unit calculates a position of the second observation area in a first direction on the basis of a position of an intersection point of the operation route and the travel route when a direction parallel to the travel route is the first direction (Boydston [0020], Examiner Note: Boydston teaches the second safety area position being where the path of the vehicle (i.e. observation route) and oncoming vehicle (i.e. travel route) intersect), and calculates a width of the second observation area in the first direction on the basis of a moving speed of the other moving body, (Boydston [0106], Examiner Note: Boydston teaches determining the width of a second safety area (i.e. observation area) based on the speed of an oncoming vehicle whose travel path (i.e. travel route) intersections with the path of the host vehicle (i.e. observation route)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the occlusion control device of Yoshihira with the with the capability of calculating the size of dynamic safety areas of Boydston in order to accommodate for rare scenarios involving a vehicle turning in front of oncoming traffic (Boydston [0001]).
The modification does not specifically teach …calculates a width of the second observation area…on the basis of…a time from passing through the observation area switching position to passing through the second observation area, an acquisition cycle of sensor data of the sensor, and a processing time of object recognition the examiner is taking official notice that it is well known to calculate a distance of a movie object based on the velocity of the object and the time to pass through the distance, as well as the processing time of a sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the blind spot estimation device of Yoshihira in view of Boydston in order to determine the distance (i.e. width) of the area.
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0118144 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Yoshihira as applied to claims 1 & 4 above, in further in view of US 2018/0144201 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Watanabe and further in view of US 2021/0094548 A1, to Komoguchi et al., hereafter Komoguchi.
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshihira in view of Watanabe teaches The blind spot estimation device according to claim 4,
However, the modification does not specifically teach the observation area switching position calculation unit calculates a position going back the operation route from a position of the intersection point at which the vehicle is assumed to pass through at first by an amount of a predetermined distance, among the intersection points in the group as the observation area switching position.
Komoguchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the observation area switching position calculation unit calculates a position going back the operation route from a position of the intersection point at which the vehicle is assumed to pass through at first by an amount of a predetermined distance, among the intersection points in the group as the observation area switching position (Komoguchi [0088]-[0091], Examiner Note: Komoguchi teaches a vehicle making a turn through oncoming traffic at an intersection where a waiting position, SP, at the intersection (i.e. predetermined distance) which is along the traveling route is used for the vehicle to wait while the oncoming vehicle passes through the intersection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the occlusion control device of Yoshihira in view of Watanabe with the having a waiting position of Komoguchi in order to not block any other traveling vehicles (Komoguchi [0044] & Fig. 4).
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0118144 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Yoshihira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0329328 A1, to Horita et al., hereafter Horita.
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshihira discloses The blind spot estimation device according to claim 1,
However, Yoshihira does not specifically disclose further comprising: a route deviation amount estimation unit that calculates a position error and an orientation error of the vehicle with respect to the operation route, wherein the recognition determination unit simulates a sensing of the second observation area by the sensor mounted to the vehicle at a position and in a direction to which the position error and the orientation error are given.
Horita, directed to the same problem, teaches further comprising: a route deviation amount estimation unit that calculates a position error and an orientation error of the vehicle with respect to the operation route (Horita [0072]-[0086], Examiner Note: Horita teaches determining the position and orientation error of a vehicle with respect to the intended route of the vehicle),
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the occlusion control device of Yoshihira with the position and orientation error determination of Horita in order to prevent dangerous travel control by using erroneous data (Horita [0002]).
The modification does not specifically teach …wherein the recognition determination unit simulates a sensing of the second observation area by the sensor mounted to the vehicle at a position and in a direction to which the position error and the orientation error are given the examiner is taking official notice that it is well known to include calculated error when observing a space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the blind spot estimation device of Yoshihira in view of Horita in order to account for error in observations.
Claim 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0118144 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Yoshihira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 112578798 A¸to Li et al., hereafter Li.
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshihira discloses The blind spot estimation device according to claim 1,
However, Yoshihira does not specifically disclose wherein the risk map generation unit indicates the second observation area by a plurality of grids on the risk map, and classifies area types of the respective plurality of grids into a visible area, a blind spot, or a conditional blind spot.
Li teaches wherein the risk map generation unit indicates the second observation area by a plurality of grids on the risk map, and classifies area types of the respective plurality of grids into a visible area, a blind spot, or a conditional blind spot (Li pg. 5, bottom of page between step S102 & S104 & Fig. 2 Examiner Note: Li teaches a grid having different values where the shades of the map represents the risk of collision. Li teaches that the shades of the grid changes based on the probability (i.e. risk) of collision where greater than 90% and less than equal to 100% (i.e. blind spot) is the darkest, the greater than or equal to 80% and less than 90% is lighter (i.e. conditional blind spot) and 80% to 0% is the lightest (i.e. visible area)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the occlusion control device of Yoshihira with the dynamic risk map of Li in order to indicate risk level of the surroundings of the vehicle to prevent damage to the vehicle (Li, Background 4th paragraph).
With respect to Claim 9, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 9 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 8. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0118144 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Yoshihira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0278544 A1, to Wendt et al., hereafter Wendt.
Regarding Claim 11, Yoshihira discloses The blind spot estimation device according to claim 1,
However, Yoshihira does not specifically disclose further comprising: an infrastructure sensor arrangement calculation unit that calculates an arrangement of an infrastructure sensor on the basis of the risk map such that the infrastructure sensor arranged in an environment performs a sensing of the blind spot.
Wendt, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: an infrastructure sensor arrangement calculation unit that calculates an arrangement of an infrastructure sensor on the basis of the risk map such that the infrastructure sensor arranged in an environment performs a sensing of the blind spot (Wendt [0093], Examiner Note: Wendt teaches collecting sensor data from infrastructure sensors and traffic/intersection cameras to use for safety risk analysis including the following: [0266] Wendt further teaches a risk map which can be determined using the safety-related data received (i.e. sensor data)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the occlusion control device of Yoshihira with the infrastructure sensor data collection of Wendt in order to accommodate for as many types of sensor data as possible to determine accurate safety-related data (Wendt [0105]).
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0118144 A1, to Yoshihira et al., hereafter Yoshihira as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2012/0166229 A1, to Collins et al., hereafter Collins.
Regarding Claim 15, Yoshihira discloses The traveling environment generation device according to claim 14,
However, Yoshihira does not specifically disclose wherein the blind spot drawing unit displays weather information estimated from the sensing data.
Collins, directed to the same problem, teaches wherein the blind spot drawing unit displays weather information estimated from the sensing data (Collins [0071] & Fig. 6, Examiner Note: Collins teaches displaying weather types and events (i.e. weather information) in order to simulate a risk zone window (i.e. risk map) for a vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the occlusion control device of Yoshihira with the weather display of Collins in order to reduce the occurrences of accidents by showing the risk associated with the weather (Collins [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,830,044 (Fukamachi, Hideo) discloses a driving support device which determines the risk potential of a driver which includes generating a risk map.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/ SPE , Art Unit 3645