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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08November2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Pending
1-5
112f
3
Objection
1, and 3-5
102
1, and 4-5
103
2
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, and 3-5 objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation "the perception condition" should read "the predetermined perception condition" for the purpose of clarity and consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
First detection unit in claim 3
Second detection unit in claim 3
Third detection unit in claim 3
All three detection units are disclosed in [0063] and may be configurations of the front camera 22, the millimeter wave radar, and the clearance sonar 32.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nister US 20190243371.
Nister discloses,
Claim(s) 1, and 4-5; A non-transitory storage medium([0183] The methods may also be embodied as computer-usable instructions stored on computer storage media) storing a program that, when an object located in front of a host vehicle meets a predetermined perception condition, causes a computer mounted on the host vehicle to perceive the object([0049] As described herein, conventional systems generally analyze sensor information corresponding to what is in front of, or behind, the vehicle (e.g., along a longitudinal axis of the vehicle) separate and distinct from analyzing sensor information corresponding to what is to the side of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., along a lateral axis of the vehicle)), and when a relationship between the host vehicle and the perceived object meets a predetermined collision condition, causes the computer to perform either or both of following operations([0048] Discloses collision between a vehicle and objects in the environment, the rest of the disclosure is dependent on a collision condition): giving a warning to notify an occupant of the host vehicle of a risk of collision with the perceived object([0230] Cameras with a field of view that include portions of the environment to the side of the vehicle 102 (e.g., side-view cameras) may be used for surround view, providing information used to create and update the occupancy grid, as well as to generate side impact collision warnings), and performing vehicle control for controlling a traveling state of the host vehicle in order to reduce the risk of collision([0299] Longitudinal ACC monitors and controls the distance to the vehicle immediately ahead of the vehicle 102 and automatically adjust the vehicle speed to maintain a safe distance from vehicles ahead), the program causing the computer to perform determining whether a specific condition is satisfied, the specific condition including at least a condition that a restricted section where traffic is restricted is present in front of the host vehicle in an adjacent lane located adjacent to an own lane in which the host vehicle travels([0117] FIGS. 4A-4F, FIGS. 4A-4F illustrate various different safety procedures that may be implemented by various actors and the actor-occupied trajectories associated with those safety procedures (e.g., the trajectories representing the claimed sets of the actors if the actors were to implement their safety procedures), specifically the scenario shown in Fig. 4D), and when the specific condition is satisfied, making the perception condition easier to be satisfied than when the specific condition is not satisfied([0260] The DLA may be used to run any type of network to enhance control and driving safety, including for example, a neural network that outputs a measure of confidence for each object detection. Such a confidence value may be interpreted as a probability, or as providing a relative “weight” of each detection compared to other detections. This confidence value enables the system to make further decisions regarding which detections should be considered as true positive detections rather than false positive detections).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nister US 20190243371 in view of D'sa US 20190329778.
Regarding claim(s) 2, Nister discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim(s) 1.
Nister further dislocses,
Claim 2; Wherein the vehicle control device is configured to determine that the specific condition is satisfied when all of following conditions are satisfied: a condition that a distance between the host vehicle and a start point of the restricted section is equal to or less than a first threshold distance([0119] The vehicle can determine a threshold indicated by 404 and can perform an action based on this threshold); a condition that an adjacent vehicle located behind the host vehicle in the adjacent lane in which the restricted section is present approaches the host vehicle(Fig. 4B shows that the host vehicle 102 can detect an adjacent vehicle 106 heading into the restricted section 404 and is approaching the host vehicle).
However, Nister fails to disclose:
Claim 2; a condition that there is no preceding vehicle in front of the host vehicle in the own lane or a distance between the preceding vehicle and the host vehicle is equal to or larger than a second threshold distance.
D'sa teaches a similar device in the same field of collision avoidance.
D'sa teaches,
Claim 2; a condition that there is no preceding vehicle in front of the host vehicle in the own lane or a distance between the preceding vehicle and the host vehicle is equal to or larger than a second threshold distance([0093] the relative distance and velocity of the vehicle in front of the preceding vehicle is used to determine the acceptable gap and speed regulation of the host vehicle).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a condition that there is no preceding vehicle in front of the host vehicle in the own lane or a distance between the preceding vehicle and the host vehicle is equal to or larger than a second threshold distance as taught by D'sa, for the purpose of ensuring there is enough space with the vehicle in front.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the invention as essentially claimed.
Nister US 20190243371 and van Kampen US 20200283019 were considered most pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nister discloses,
a first detection unit that detects the object based on image data acquired by capturing a view in front of the host vehicle([0229] One or more stereo cameras 1168 may also be included in a front-facing configuration), and a third detection unit that transmits a sound wave to around the host vehicle and detects the object as the transmitted sound wave receives a reflected wave reflected by the object([0289] The vehicle 102 may further include ultrasonic sensor(s) 1162. The ultrasonic sensor(s) 1162, which may be positioned at the front, back, and/or the sides of the vehicle 102, may be used for park assist and/or to create and update an occupancy grid).
van Kampen teaches a similar device in the same field of collision avoidance, wherein the device includes a second detection unit that transmits an electromagnetic wave forward of the host vehicle and detects the object as the transmitted electromagnetic wave receives a reflected wave reflected by the object([0045] a millimeter wave sensor can be used for object detection to avoid collision).
However, none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious the further combination of when the specific condition is not satisfied, the vehicle control device determines that the object meets the perception condition when both of following conditions are satisfied: a condition that the first detection unit detects the object and the second detection unit detects the same object as the object detected by the first detection unit; and a condition that a detection time during which the first detection unit detects the object is equal to or longer than a first threshold time and a reflection intensity of the electromagnetic wave from the object is equal to or higher than a first threshold intensity, when the specific condition is satisfied, the vehicle control device determines that the object meets the perception condition when any one of following conditions is satisfied: a condition that the first detection unit detects the object and the detection time is equal to or longer than a second threshold time that is shorter than the first threshold time; a condition that the second detection unit detects the object and the reflection intensity is equal to or higher than a second threshold intensity that is lower than the first threshold intensity; and a condition when the third detection unit detects the object, the vehicle control device further determines whether the perception condition is satisfied for an object located in a detection area including a right detection area on a right side of the host vehicle and a left detection area on a left side of the host vehicle, and when the specific condition is satisfied, the vehicle control device makes the perception condition easier to be satisfied than when the specific condition is not satisfied in a region where the restricted section is present out of the right detection area and the left detection area.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Merino whose telephone number is (703)756-4721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/John C Merino/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669