DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-196123, filed on 11/17/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-25 filed on 11/06/2024 are presently examined.
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 limitations are:
“a first acquisition unit configured to acquire map information” in claim 1.
“a second acquisition unit configured to acquire shape information of a road within a predetermined range” in claims 1 and 5.
“mobile unit” in claims 1-4, 13, 16-17, and 20-25.
“an identification unit configured to identify a junction on the road” in claims 1, 6-7 and 9-10.
“a first control unit configured to control notification regarding to merging at the identified junction, for the mobile unit in a case where a junction is identified in the road within the predetermined range” in claims 1 and 13-22.
“a first setting unit configured to set a candidate for a junction in the map information” in claim 5.
“a change unit configured to change the predetermined range” in claims 6 and 7.
“a second setting unit configured to set a plurality of conditions” in claims 9 and 10.
“an estimation unit configured to estimate a merging point in the identified junction” in claim 14.
“a recognition unit configured to recognize a surrounding situation” in claims 16 and 20.
“a first determination unit configured to determine whether or not the recognized surrounding situation of the mobile unit is a situation for the notification” in claims 16 and 17.
“a second determination unit configured to determine, on the basis of the recognized surrounding situation …” in claim 20
“a second control unit configured to control a notification device” in claim 20.
“a third acquisition unit configured to acquire the number of times a user of the mobile unit has used the merging assistance” in claim 21.
“a fourth acquisition unit configured to acquire the number of times a user of the mobile unit has used the merging assistance” in claim 22.
“a classification unit configured to classify shapes of junctions” in claim 23.
These units are described in the specification as being part of the driver assistance apparatus 100 as some combination of hardware and software. [0034] “driving assistance apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment includes an acquisition unit 110, an identification unit 120, the recognition unit 130, a determination unit 140, and a control unit 150. These functional units are implemented by, for example, a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) executing a program (software). In addition, some or all of these components may be implemented by hardware (a circuit; including circuitry) such as a large-scale integration (LSI), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or a graphics processing unit (GPU), or may be implemented by software and hardware in cooperation.” Examiner will interpret these units as some combination of hardware or software implemented by a CPU executing programs.
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.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-23 are directed to an apparatus, (i.e. a machine). Claim 24 is directed to a method. Claim 25 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with a stored program executed by a computer to perform the method (i.e. a machine). Therefore, claims 1-25 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 25 recites similar limitations as independent claims 1 and 24 and will be used as a representative claim.
Claim 25 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a driving assistance method comprising:
acquiring map information;
acquiring shape information of a road within a predetermined range with respect to a mobile unit on a basis of the map information;
identifying a junction on the road within the predetermined range on the basis of the shape information; and
controlling notification regarding to merging at the identified junction, for the mobile unit in a case where a junction is identified in the road within the predetermined range.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally acquiring map information with either their own memory or their eyes, and acquiring shape information of a road within a predetermined range on the bases of the previously mentioned acquired map data. Subsequently, a human can then identify a junction on the road within the predetermined range on the basis of shape information, mentally, and then notify themselves or someone else in regards to merging at said junction identified within the predetermined range. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, 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 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”):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a driving assistance method comprising:
acquiring map information;
acquiring shape information of a road within a predetermined range with respect to a mobile unit on a basis of the map information;
identifying a junction on the road within the predetermined range on the basis of the shape information; and
controlling notification regarding to merging at the identified junction, for the mobile unit in a case where a junction is identified in the road within the predetermined range.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely use a computer to perform otherwise mental judgements, and therefore is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 25 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 elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and/or perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Receiving information about the number of lanes, junctions, etcetera is not significantly more, because this is merely receiving or transmitting data over a network – or within memory if such data is stored onboard the vehicle. This receiving of data is similar to merely data gathering to subsequently perform an otherwise mental judgement.
Dependent claims 2-23 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
If there is support in Applicant’s specification for the merging assistance or another controller in the vehicle to explicitly control the vehicle’s motor or steering, for example, Examiner kindly suggests that the Applicant considers amending the independent claims to include it to overcome this 35 USC 101 rejection. Merely providing various audible or visual notifications to a driver with instructions or warnings is not significantly more and, at this time, seems likely that any amendments that do not provide significantly more than said audible or displayed notifications and warnings will not overcome this 35 USC 101 rejection. Examiner will fully consider any arguments filed with a response to this Action.
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 1-2, 5, 9-17, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muto et al. (US 20170137025 A1), hereinafter referred to as Muto.
Regarding claims 1, 24, and 25, Muto discloses A driving assistance apparatus comprising:
a first acquisition unit configured to acquire map information; a second acquisition unit configured to acquire shape information of a road within a predetermined range with respect to a mobile unit on a basis of the map information ([0038] "specifies intersection C ahead of subject vehicle A on traveling road R1 (within a predetermined distance (e.g., 300 m) from subject vehicle A) based on the current position of subject vehicle A and the road map data ... successively specify a plurality of intersections C within the predetermined distance" [0024] “As illustrated in FIG. 1, the driving assistance apparatus 1 includes a driving assistance control section 2 having a computer as a main component.” [0026] “in accordance with a program stored in ROM.”);
an identification unit configured to identify a junction on the road within the predetermined range on the basis of the shape information ([0034] "The driving assistance control section 2 performs map matching with road shape data about junctional road R2 to determine (detect) whether different vehicle B is traveling junctional road R2."); and
a first control unit configured to control notification regarding to merging at the identified junction, for the mobile unit in a case where a junction is identified in the road within the predetermined range ([0049] "The embodiment performs the support process corresponding to a distance between subject vehicle A and specific intersection C (reference position P) out of a plurality of types of support processes (such as attention, warning").
Regarding claim 2, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined range is a region that is determined on the basis of a position of the mobile unit ([0038] "specifies intersection C ahead of subject vehicle A on traveling road R1 (within a predetermined distance (e.g., 300 m) from subject vehicle A) based on the current position of subject vehicle A and the road map data").
Regarding claim 5, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a first setting unit configured to set a candidate for a junction in the map information, wherein the second acquisition unit acquires a shape of a road within a predetermined range including the candidate for the junction, as the shape of the road within the predetermined range ([0034] "The driving assistance control section 2 performs map matching with road shape data about junctional road R2 to determine (detect) whether different vehicle B is traveling junctional road R2.").
Regarding claim 9, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a second setting unit configured to set a plurality of conditions for identifying the junction, the plurality of conditions being related to the shape information, wherein the identification unit identifies, as the junction, a place that satisfies the conditions set by the second setting unit ([0027] "The road map data is provided as link data by dividing a road on the map into a plurality of parts using intersections as nodes and defining a part between nodes as a link. The link data includes data such as a link ID (identifier) specific to the link, a link length, position data (longitude and latitude) at the beginning and the end (nodes) of the link, angle (direction) data, road width, road type, and limiting speed.").
Regarding claim 10, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the identification unit identifies, as the junction, a place that satisfies at least two of the conditions set by the second setting unit ([0035] "based on distances to reference position P settled at specific intersection C and vehicle speeds. The calculation considers the information about the width of junctional road R2 or the limiting speed to settle the speed of different vehicle B." [0038] "specify a plurality of intersections C within the predetermined distance ahead. At step S2, the process extracts junctional road R2 from the road map data. Junctional road R2, which is not traveling road R1, is connected to specified specific intersection C in a vehicle entry allowed manner. The process further acquires data related to an attribute (such as the limiting speed or the road width) of junctional road R2.").
Regarding claim 11, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 9, wherein each of the conditions related to the shape information is any of the following: the number of lanes on a road after the road joins another road is two or more ([0052] "when a plurality of lanes exist after the position where traveling road R1 merges as illustrated in FIG. 4(c), there is no possibility of collision if lane L1 traveled by subject vehicle A differs from lane L2 traveled by different vehicle B."); the number of lanes on a road before the road joins another road is two or less; an angle at which two roads join is a predetermined threshold value or less; and a road before or after the joining has an attribute added to the road in the map information, the attribute being a predetermined attribute ([0035] "based on distances to reference position P settled at specific intersection C and vehicle speeds. The calculation considers the information about the width of junctional road R2 or the limiting speed to settle the speed of different vehicle B." [0038] "specify a plurality of intersections C within the predetermined distance ahead. At step S2, the process extracts junctional road R2 from the road map data. Junctional road R2, which is not traveling road R1, is connected to specified specific intersection C in a vehicle entry allowed manner. The process further acquires data related to an attribute (such as the limiting speed or the road width) of junctional road R2.").
Regarding claim 12, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the conditions related to the shape information include a condition based on links indicating the roads in the map information and nodes connected by the links ([0027] "The road map data is provided as link data by dividing a road on the map into a plurality of parts using intersections as nodes and defining a part between nodes as a link. ").
Regarding claim 13, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first control unit controls the notification in a case where it is determined that the mobile unit is traveling at the junction ([0043] "display section 7 provides a display for attention if a distance from subject vehicle A to specific intersection C (reference position P) is larger than 100 m, for example. The display section 7 provides a display and the audio output section 8 outputs audio for warning if the distance is larger than 30 m and is shorter than or equal to 100 m.").
Regarding claim 14, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an estimation unit configured to estimate a merging point in the identified junction, wherein the first control unit controls the notification at a timing based on the estimated merging point (0043] "display section 7 provides a display for attention if a distance from subject vehicle A to specific intersection C (reference position P) is larger than 100 m, for example. The display section 7 provides a display and the audio output section 8 outputs audio for warning if the distance is larger than 30 m and is shorter than or equal to 100 m.").
Regarding claim 15, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the first control unit controls the notification at a predetermined distance from the merging point or at a point at which an expected time of arrival at the merging point becomes a predetermined time ([0043] "display section 7 provides a display for attention if a distance from subject vehicle A to specific intersection C (reference position P) is larger than 100 m, for example. The display section 7 provides a display and the audio output section 8 outputs audio for warning if the distance is larger than 30 m and is shorter than or equal to 100 m.").
Regarding claim 16, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a recognition unit configured to recognize a surrounding situation of the mobile unit ([0026] “The navigation control section 4 therefore functions as a position detection section and a position detection means along with the sensor section 10.” [0028] “A map matching process is performed to place the position of subject vehicle A on a displayed road of the electronic map when the location function is implemented. The map matching process estimates a currently traveled road by performing comparison and matching between a traveled trajectory of subject vehicle A and a road shape in the road map data”); and
a first determination unit configured to determine whether or not the recognized surrounding situation of the mobile unit is a situation for the notification by the first control unit ([0028] "The map matching process estimates a currently traveled road by performing comparison and matching between a traveled trajectory of subject vehicle A and a road shape in the road map data in consideration of an error." [0040] "the process determines (detects) whether different vehicle B is traveling junctional road R2, by performing map matching between travel trajectory information L (see FIG. 3) about different vehicle B and road shape data (represented by a thin dotted line in FIG. 3) about junctional road R2."), wherein
in a case where it is determined by the first determination unit that the notification is to be provided, the first control unit provides the notification (after map matching and vehicle B is determined to be on the same road, then the collision system begins which is when it notifies host vehicle A at the two different distance thresholds the upcoming junction.).
Regarding claim 17, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 16, wherein in a case where it is determined by the first determination unit that the notification is to be provided and that the mobile unit is traveling at the junction, the first control unit provides the notification ([0043] "display section 7 provides a display for attention if a distance from subject vehicle A to specific intersection C (reference position P) is larger than 100 m, for example. The display section 7 provides a display and the audio output section 8 outputs audio for warning if the distance is larger than 30 m and is shorter than or equal to 100 m.").
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cosatto et al. (US 20160054452 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cosatto.
Regarding Claim 3, Muto fails to disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined range is a region that is further determined on the basis of a speed of the mobile unit.
However, Cosatto teaches The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined range is a region that is further determined on the basis of a speed of the mobile unit ([claim 11] “ The system of claim 2, wherein the finding of the active roads ahead of the vehicle in the traffic scene is determined with the 3D position, speed and the heading of the vehicle, wherein based on the vehicle's position, the closest road on the street map is selected, wherein based on the vehicle's speed, a proportional active distance ahead of the selected road is calculated and a corresponding segment of the road is deemed active and further searched for intersecting roads, wherein for each intersection found, the roads leading to the intersection become active.” [0032] “In block 54, the road segment is searched for street intersections. When an intersection is found, the segment of the road leading to that intersection is added to a list of active road segments. The length of this road segment may be either fixed or depend on the vehicle's speed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with Cosatto. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use vehicle speed to proportionally modify the search distance for finding intersections ahead in order to to provide a real-time representation ahead of the driver’s vehicle (Cosatto [0022] “a real-time two-dimensional (2D) top-view map representation of a traffic scene ahead of the driver's vehicle”).
Regarding Claim 4, Muto fails to explicitly disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined range is a rectangular range with the mobile unit as a center.
However, Muto teaches The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined range is a circular range with the mobile unit as a center ([0038] "specifies intersection C ahead of subject vehicle A on traveling road R1 (within a predetermined distance (e.g., 300 m) from subject vehicle A) based on the current position of subject vehicle A and the road map data." [0030] “circular area with a predetermined radius (e.g., a radius of 300 m)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto and try one of a finite number of identified, predictable range shapes. One of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation of success to choose from a limited number of possible shapes that the predetermined range could take form, including, as non-limiting examples: a circle, rectangle, oval, triangle, etcetera. There is no obvious advantage of one shape over another. See MPEP 2143(I)(E) for more details on choosing from a finite number of “obvious to try” features.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 20150308841 A1), hereinafter referred to as Matsunaga.
Regarding Claim 6, Muto fails to disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the identification unit further identifies the number of roads and the number of intersections within the predetermined range, and
the driving assistance apparatus further comprising
a change unit configured to change the predetermined range on the basis of the number of roads and the number of intersections within the predetermined range as identified by the identification unit.
However, Matsunaga teaches The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the identification unit further identifies the number of roads and the number of intersections within the predetermined range, and the driving assistance apparatus further comprising a change unit configured to change the predetermined range on the basis of the number of roads and the number of intersections within the predetermined range as identified by the identification unit ([0106] “The server 31 may extend the range of searching for a predicted course on a mountain road near which no other roads exist. If a road exists within the range of specified distance from the vehicle position, the server 31 can settle this road as a predicted course while increasing the specified distance or extending the range of searching for the predicted course … The server 31 may narrow a range of searching for a predicted course in an urban area where many roads exist around.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with Matsunaga. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to extend or narrow the search range based on the number of roads found in order to find roads even where they be none nearby like a mountain road (Matsunaga [0106] “the server 31 can search for a nearest road and settle it as a predicted course even if the vehicle travels a mountain road.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Muto fails to disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 6, wherein in a case where a sum of the number of roads and the number of intersections identified by the identification unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the change unit changes the predetermined range to be smaller.
However, Matsunaga teaches The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 6, wherein in a case where a sum of the number of roads and the number of intersections identified by the identification unit is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, the change unit changes the predetermined range to be smaller ([0106] “The server 31 may extend the range of searching for a predicted course on a mountain road near which no other roads exist. If a road exists within the range of specified distance from the vehicle position, the server 31 can settle this road as a predicted course while increasing the specified distance or extending the range of searching for the predicted course … The server 31 may narrow a range of searching for a predicted course in an urban area where many roads exist around.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with Matsunaga. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to extend or narrow the search range based on the number of roads found in order to find roads even where they be none nearby like a mountain road (Matsunaga [0106] “the server 31 can search for a nearest road and settle it as a predicted course even if the vehicle travels a mountain road.”).
Regarding claim 8, Muto discloses The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the number of roads is the number of links indicating the roads in the map information, and the number of intersections is the number of nodes connected by the links ([0027] "The road map data is provided as link data by dividing a road on the map into a plurality of parts using intersections as nodes and defining a part between nodes as a link.").
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goto et al. (US 20190126942 A1), hereinafter referred to as Goto.
Regarding Claim 18, Muto fails to disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where a junction is identified in the road within the predetermined range, the first control unit provides notification of whether or not to execute merging assistance processing when merging at the junction.
However, Goto teaches The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where a junction is identified in the road within the predetermined range, the first control unit provides notification of whether or not to execute merging assistance processing when merging at the junction ([FIGs 13-15] [0082] “an input operation that finishes automatic driving may be received by the operation device 12 as a response to an assistance display that requests a driving operation by the driver for switching to manual driving. A lever operation in the direction of a lane change or merging may be received by the blinker lever as a response to an assistance display that requests approval by the driver for the lane change or merging.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with Goto. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a notification for approval from the driver to receive merging assistance which is indispensable for vehicle travel (Goto [0081] “approval by the driver for a lane change or merging that is indispensable for the own vehicle to continue traveling”).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Goto as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of JP 2022065662 A, hereinafter referred to as JP ‘662.
Regarding Claim 19, Muto fails to disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 18, wherein in a case where no user input is received for a predetermined period of time in response to the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing, the first control unit continues or provides again the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing.
However, JP ‘662 teaches The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 18, wherein in a case where no user input is received for a predetermined period of time in response to the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing, the first control unit continues or provides again the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing ([0163] “The output of character information according to (1) to (18) above should be repeated at a predetermined interval (for example, every 10 seconds). This means that even if a driver doesn't notice the notification in the initial stages, repeated notifications will eventually lead the driver to notice the notification and drive safely.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with JP ‘662. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to repeat the notification in order to ensure the driver is aware of the notification (JP ‘662 [0163] “In this way, the driver assistance system 4 can ensure that the driver is aware of the notification content.”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Goto as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Nimura et al. (US 12528463 B2), hereinafter referred to as Nimura.
Regarding Claim 20, Muto fails to disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 18, further comprising:
a recognition unit configured to recognize a surrounding situation of the mobile unit;
a second determination unit configured to determine, on the basis of the recognized surrounding situation, whether the mobile unit is traveling in an acceleration section or a merging section of the merging lane when the mobile unit changes lanes from a merging lane to a merged lane; and
a second control unit configured to control a notification device to make different notifications as the merging assistance processing when the mobile unit is determined to be traveling in the acceleration section and when the mobile unit is determined to be traveling in the merging section, the notification device being mounted on the mobile unit, wherein in a case where no user input is received in response to the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing when the mobile unit enters the acceleration section, the first control unit again provides the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing.
However, Nimura teaches The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 18, further comprising:
a recognition unit configured to recognize a surrounding situation of the mobile unit; a second determination unit configured to determine, on the basis of the recognized surrounding situation, whether the mobile unit is traveling in an acceleration section or a merging section of the merging lane when the mobile unit changes lanes from a merging lane to a merged lane; and a second control unit configured to control a notification device to make different notifications as the merging assistance processing when the mobile unit is determined to be traveling in the acceleration section and when the mobile unit is determined to be traveling in the merging section, the notification device being mounted on the mobile unit ([column 33, lines 51-62] “provide driving assistance by displaying the static travel path generated at the above-described S3 or the dynamic travel path generated at the above-described S6 on a navigation screen and providing guidance using voice, a screen, etc. (e.g., guidance on a lane change or guidance on recommended vehicle speeds based on a speed plan). In addition, user's driving operations may be assisted by displaying a static travel path or a dynamic travel path on a navigation screen.” [FIGs 11 and 13] acceleration sections and merging sections. Notifications based on the sections for acceleration/speed guidance and merging guidance after onramp.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with Nimura. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide notifications during acceleration and merging while on an onramp intersection in order to assist with driving (Nimura [column 2, lines 50-51] “provision of display guidance or voice guidance for assisting in driving.”).
Further, JP ‘662 teaches in a case where no user input is received in response to the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing when the mobile unit enters the acceleration section, the first control unit again provides the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing ([0163] “The output of character information according to (1) to (18) above should be repeated at a predetermined interval (for example, every 10 seconds). This means that even if a driver doesn't notice the notification in the initial stages, repeated notifications will eventually lead the driver to notice the notification and drive safely.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with JP ‘662. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to repeat the notification in order to ensure the driver is aware of the notification (JP ‘662 [0163] “In this way, the driver assistance system 4 can ensure that the driver is aware of the notification content.”).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Goto as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Katsumi (JP 2006313085 A), hereinafter referred to as Katsumi.
Regarding Claim 21, Muto fails to disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 18, further comprising
a third acquisition unit configured to acquire the number of times a user of the mobile unit has used the merging assistance processing, wherein
in a case where the number of times of use is less than a predetermined threshold value, the first control unit provides the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing.
However, Katsumi teaches The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 18, further comprising
a third acquisition unit configured to acquire the number of times a user of the mobile unit has used the merging assistance processing, wherein in a case where the number of times of use is less than a predetermined threshold value, the first control unit provides the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing ([0032] “if the number of times the vehicle has traveled on the road being driven is less than a certain threshold (for example, 5 times), the system determines that the road is unfamiliar (determined as YES in S202), and then displays route guidance on the screen and provides voice guidance.” [0033] “if the number of times the vehicle has previously traveled on the road being driven is equal to or greater than a certain threshold (for example, 5 times), the system determines that the road being driven on is not an unfamiliar road (determined as NO in S202), and then controls the system to refrain from providing route guidance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with Katsumi. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a threshold and the number of times used in order to only provide the guidance notification when needed (Katsumi [0006] “automatically display a route guidance screen when route guidance is needed and to automatically prevent the display of the route guidance screen when route guidance is not needed.”).
Regarding Claim 22, Muto fails to disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 18, further comprising
a fourth acquisition unit configured to acquire the number of times a user of the mobile unit has used the merging assistance processing and a driving history of the mobile unit by the user, wherein
in a case where a ratio of use of the merging assistance processing during driving of the mobile unit by the user is less than a predetermined threshold value, the first control unit provides the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing.
However, Katsumi teaches The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 18, further comprising
a fourth acquisition unit configured to acquire the number of times a user of the mobile unit has used the merging assistance processing and a driving history of the mobile unit by the user, wherein in a case where a ratio of use of the merging assistance processing during driving of the mobile unit by the user is less than a predetermined threshold value, the first control unit provides the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing ([0032] “if the number of times the vehicle has traveled on the road being driven is less than a certain threshold (for example, 5 times), the system determines that the road is unfamiliar (determined as YES in S202), and then displays route guidance on the screen and provides voice guidance.” [0033] “if the number of times the vehicle has previously traveled on the road being driven is equal to or greater than a certain threshold (for example, 5 times), the system determines that the road being driven on is not an unfamiliar road (determined as NO in S202), and then controls the system to refrain from providing route guidance.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with Katsumi. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a threshold and the number of times used in order to only provide the guidance notification when needed (Katsumi [0006] “automatically display a route guidance screen when route guidance is needed and to automatically prevent the display of the route guidance screen when route guidance is not needed.”).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Goto and JP ‘662 as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Katsumi and Matsunaga, hereinafter referred to as Katsumi.
Regarding Claim 23, Muto fails to disclose The driving assistance apparatus according to claim 19, further comprising
a classification unit configured to classify shapes of junctions, wherein
in a case where a ratio of use of the merging assistance processing for each classification of the junctions during driving of the mobile unit by a user is less than a predetermined threshold value, the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing is provided.
However, Matsunaga teaches comprising a classification unit configured to classify shapes of junctions ([0054] “road width data indicating the width of a road corresponding to each link; road shape data indicating a shape (e.g., cross road or T-shaped intersection) of a road corresponding to each link”) and guidance based on the classification of the road ahead ([column 15, lines 38-42] “a route along the guidance route is specified as a planned route (S9). If it is determined that a guidance route has not been set, a planned route is specified based on the road information that specifies classification of lanes located ahead” [column 5, lines 50-60] describes classification of shapes including intersections.).
Further, Katsumi teaches wherein in a case where a ratio of use of the merging assistance processing for each classification of the junctions during driving of the mobile unit by a user is less than a predetermined threshold value, the notification of whether or not to execute the merging assistance processing is provided ([0032] “if the number of times the vehicle has traveled on the road being driven is less than a certain threshold (for example, 5 times), the system determines that the road is unfamiliar (determined as YES in S202), and then displays route guidance on the screen and provides voice guidance.” [0033] “if the number of times the vehicle has previously traveled on the road being driven is equal to or greater than a certain threshold (for example, 5 times), the system determines that the road being driven on is not an unfamiliar road (determined as NO in S202), and then controls the system to refrain from providing route guidance.” [0043] “determine whether it is daytime or nighttime, and makes separate determinations as to whether or not it is an unfamiliar road depending on whether the vehicle is traveling during the daytime or at night.” [and 0053] Katsumi considers conditions that make situations unique and decides whether to provide guidance notification based on the number of times of that classified situation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muto with Katsumi. One of ordinary skill would be motivated, with reasonable expectation of success, to use a threshold and the number of times used in order to only provide the guidance notification when needed (Katsumi [0006] “automatically display a route guidance screen when route guidance is needed and to automatically prevent the display of the route guidance screen when route guidance is not needed.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fadey Jabr can be reached on 571-272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights