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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the predicted positions” would be better understood as “the plurality of predicted positions”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein
V
x
is a speed of the vehicle wherein,
α
is an acceleration of the vehicle” would be better understood as wherein
V
x
is a speed of the vehicle, wherein[[,]]
α
is an acceleration of the vehicle”.
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: rear-wheel steering unit configured to steer…; failure determination unit…configured to determine…; curvature prediction unit…configured to generate…; a position prediction unit…configured to generate… in claims 1-6.
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. Applicant’s specification recites [0023]: terms such as ‘unit’, ‘module’, and the like refer to one or more units for processing at least one function or operation, which may be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 9 recites “wherein the yaw rate
γ
^
[
t
]
is determined by an equation:
ρ
^
∙
V
x
^
=
γ
^
wherein
ρ
^
is the predicted curvature, wherein
V
x
^
=
V
x
+
α
∆
t
.” However, variables
V
x
^
and
∆
t
do not appear to be defined in the claim.
The term “later” in claims 5, 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “later” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 5 recites wherein the position prediction unit is further configured to generate the predicted positions up to a predetermined time later is unclear because claim 4 previously recites that each of the predicted positions being a predicted position generated at a predetermine time interval; accordingly it is unclear to whether a predetermined time later is a time or time interval later than the predetermined time interval introduced in claim 4. Claim 11 dependent upon claim 10 recites similar limitations and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 6 recites wherein the rear wheel steering unit controls the rear wheels of the vehicle using the predicted curvature generated by the curvature prediction unit and the predicted position generated by the position prediction unit. The limitation is unclear in light of the independent claims and the specification because claim 6 indicates controlling the rear wheels using the predicted curvature and the predicted position and claim 1, however, recites that the predicted curvature is based on the failure situation of the rear-wheel steering unit. While the specification states [0073] The rear wheel steering unit 100 can control the rear wheels of the vehicle using the predicted curvature generated by the curvature prediction unit 120 and the predicted position generated by the position prediction unit 130, this situation appears to be related to when the rear wheel steering unit operates normally (see at least [0078]: When the rear wheel steering unit 100 operates normally, the curvature prediction unit 120 generates the predicted curvature based on the rear wheel angle, the front wheel angle, and the yaw rate (S420)). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear to whether the rear wheel steering unit in a failed situation may control the rear wheels of the vehicle using the predicted curvature wherein the predicted curvature is based on the rear wheel angle (see at least [0079]: When the rear wheel angle is measurable, the curvature prediction unit 120 generates the predicted curvature of the vehicle based on, for example, the rear wheel angle and the front wheel angle, [0080] When the rear wheel angle is not measurable, the curvature prediction unit 120 generates the predicted curvature of the vehicle based on the yaw rate (S440).). Further, the specification indicates that it is possible to use a frontal collision avoidance function even when the rear wheel angle is not measurable, by generating the predicted curvature and the predicted position of a vehicle based on whether or not the rear wheel angle is measurable (see at least [0083]).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 6 in light of respective independent claims 7 and 13 that measure a rear wheel angle, generate a predicted curvature based on the failure situation, wherein the predicted curvature is based the rear wheel angle.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18945175 in view of US 20230018786 (“Kim ‘786”). Claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18945175 discloses the limitations of claims 1-14 but does not explicitly disclose a position prediction unit operatively connected to the curvature prediction unit and configured to generate a predicted position of the vehicle based on the predicted curvature. However, Kim ‘786 teaches a position prediction unit operatively connected to the curvature prediction unit and configured to generate a predicted position of the vehicle based on the predicted curvature (see at least [0005]: weighted combinations of predicted path curvature and rate more accurately predict the vehicle's path, improving identification of the closest in path vehicle for evaluation of collision potential, [0047]: ego vehicle path prediction is made with a third-order polynomial including both curvature and rate of curvature. Two types of curvature and rate of curvature may be obtained by using the Ackerman angle, kinematics, and vehicle dynamics). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18945175 by incorporating the teachings of Kim ‘786 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more accurately predict a path of a vehicle.
Examiner note: copending Application No. 18945175 specification discloses the position prediction unit (see at least [0006]: predicts a position of the vehicle, [0038]: each of the rear wheel steering unit 100, the failure determination unit 110, the curvature prediction unit 120, and the position prediction unit 130 may be implemented by a processor (e.g., computer, microprocessor, CPU, ASIC, circuitry, logic circuits, etc.)).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 7-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 7, 13 are directed to an apparatus, a method, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Therefore, the claims 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 MPEP 2106, 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(s) 7 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded portions represent the abstract idea below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 7 recites:
measuring, by a processor including a rear-wheel steering unit, a rear wheel angle;
generating, by the processor, a status signal of the rear-wheel steering unit;
determining, by the processor, a failure situation of the rear-wheel steering unit based on the status signal;
generating, by the processor, a predicted curvature based on the failure situation; and
generating, by the processor, the predicted position of the vehicle based on the predicted curvature, wherein the generating of the predicted curvature includes generating the predicted curvature based on the rear wheel angle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded 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, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining a failure situation based on the status; predicting a curvature based on the determination and a wheel angle; predicting a position of the vehicle based on the predicted curvature.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, 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 MPEP 2106, 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 limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 7 recites:
measuring, by a processor including a rear-wheel steering unit, a rear wheel angle;
generating, by the processor, a status signal of the rear-wheel steering unit;
determining, by the processor, a failure situation of the rear-wheel steering unit based on the status signal;
generating, by the processor, a predicted curvature based on the failure situation; and
generating, by the processor, the predicted position of the vehicle based on the predicted curvature, wherein the generating of the predicted curvature includes generating the predicted curvature based on the rear wheel angle.
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, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data, storing data, transmitting signals), and amount to mere data gathering and do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract 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 MPEP 2106, representative independent claim 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 amount 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, 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 do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 8-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 8-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore, claim(s) 7-11, 13 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180297634 (“Kim ‘634”) in view of US 20180043931 (“Gupta”), US 20240359697 (“Kim ‘697”) and US 20230018786 (“Kim ‘786”).
As per claim(s) 1, 7, 13, Kim ‘634 discloses a vehicle control apparatus, comprising:
a rear-wheel steering unit configured to steer rear wheels of a vehicle and to generate a status signal (see at least abstract: controlling a rear wheel steering (RWS) system, may include determining, by a controller, whether an abnormality occurs in a rear wheel alignment based on information collected from the vehicle, [0035]: controller 20 configured to receive information (“detector signals”) which is detected by the detectors 11, 12, 13, and 14, and the controller 20 detects an abnormality of a rear wheel alignment to determine a correction amount of the rear wheel alignment, corrects a rear wheel control position, which is determined by the RWS basic logic, by the determined correction amount of the rear wheel alignment, and outputs a control signal for controlling an operation of an RWS actuator 30 according to the corrected rear wheel control position (“a final target rear wheel helm angle”));
a failure determination unit operatively connected to the rear-wheel steering unit and configured to determine a failure situation of the rear-wheel steering unit based on the status signal (see at least abstract: controlling a rear wheel steering (RWS) system, may include determining, by a controller, whether an abnormality occurs in a rear wheel alignment based on information collected from the vehicle, [0035]: controller 20 configured to receive information (“detector signals”) which is detected by the detectors 11, 12, 13, and 14, and the controller 20 detects an abnormality of a rear wheel alignment to determine a correction amount of the rear wheel alignment, corrects a rear wheel control position, which is determined by the RWS basic logic, by the determined correction amount of the rear wheel alignment, and outputs a control signal for controlling an operation of an RWS actuator 30 according to the corrected rear wheel control position (“a final target rear wheel helm angle”)).
Kim ‘634 does not explicitly disclose to measure a rear wheel angle.
However, Gupta teaches to measure a rear wheel angle (see at least [0023]: rear wheel angle sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kim ‘634 by incorporating the teachings of Gupta with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide data for improved autonomous control of a vehicle. The combination would yield predictable results.
Kim ‘634 does not explicitly disclose a curvature prediction unit operatively connected to the failure determination unit and configured to generate a predicted curvature of a traveling route of the vehicle based on the failure situation.
However, Kim ‘697 teaches a curvature prediction unit operatively connected to the failure determination unit and configured to generate a predicted curvature of a traveling route of the vehicle based on the failure situation (see at least [0064]: controller 120 may receive information about a driving lane, which is a road on which the vehicle travels, and information about other vehicles around the vehicle from the sensor. The controller 120 may determine the target yaw rate based on information about the driving lane and the information about other vehicles…if the driver's manipulation of the steering wheel is not reflected in the steering control due to a failure such as a communication failure in the steering system, the controller 120 may determine a target steering direction reflecting curvature information of the driving lane or driving information of other vehicles and generate a target yaw rate value accordingly, [0065]: if it is detected that the driving lane forms a left curve when a failure occurs, the controller 120 may generate the target yaw rate based on the curvature of the driving lane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kim ‘634 by incorporating the teachings of Kim ‘697 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved safety and vehicle stability. The combination would yield predictable results.
Kim ‘634 does not explicitly disclose a position prediction unit operatively connected to the curvature prediction unit and configured to generate a predicted position of the vehicle based on the predicted curvature.
However, Kim ‘786 teaches a position prediction unit operatively connected to the curvature prediction unit and configured to generate a predicted position of the vehicle based on the predicted curvature (see at least [0005]: weighted combinations of predicted path curvature and rate more accurately predict the vehicle's path, improving identification of the closest in path vehicle for evaluation of collision potential, [0023]: Ackerman steer angle calculates path curvature from the road wheel angle δ.sub.rwa (in units of radians [rad]) and the wheelbase length L (in units of [m]), [0047]: ego vehicle path prediction is made with a third-order polynomial including both curvature and rate of curvature. Two types of curvature and rate of curvature may be obtained by using the Ackerman angle, kinematics, and vehicle dynamics),
wherein the curvature prediction unit generates the predicted curvature based on the rear wheel angle (see at least [0023]: Ackerman steer angle calculates path curvature from the road wheel angle δ.sub.rwa (in units of radians [rad]) and the wheelbase length L (in units of [m]),).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kim ‘634 by incorporating the teachings of Kim ‘786 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more accurately predict a path of a vehicle. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 6, 12, 14, Kim ‘634 does not explicitly disclose wherein the rear wheel steering unit controls the rear wheels of the vehicle using the predicted curvature generated by the curvature prediction unit and the predicted position generated by the position prediction unit.
However, Kim ‘697 teaches wherein the rear wheel steering unit controls the rear wheels of the vehicle using the predicted curvature generated by the curvature prediction unit and the predicted position generated by the position prediction unit (see at least abstract: a rear wheel steering control signal to follow the target yaw rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kim ‘634 by incorporating the teachings of Kim ‘697 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved safety and vehicle stability. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 2, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘634 in view of Gupta, Kim ‘697 and Kim ‘786, and further in view of "Simple Understanding of Kinematic Bicycle Model" Ding, Yan 12 August 2022 (“Ding”).
As per claim(s) 2, 8, Kim ‘634 does not explicitly disclose wherein the position prediction unit is further configured to generate the predicted position by an equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
58
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein
γ
^
[
t
]
is a yaw rate at time t,
X
[
t
]
denotes an X-direction position of the vehicle at t second, and
Y
[
t
]
denotes a Y-direction position of the vehicle at t seconds,
ψ
[
t
]
denotes a yaw angle of the vehicle t seconds.
However, Ding teaches wherein the position prediction unit is further configured to generate the predicted position by an equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
58
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein
γ
^
[
t
]
is a yaw rate at time t,
X
[
t
]
denotes an X-direction position of the vehicle at t second, and
Y
[
t
]
denotes a Y-direction position of the vehicle at t seconds,
ψ
[
t
]
denotes a yaw angle of the vehicle t seconds (see at least
page 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
57
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
page 10:
PNG
media_image3.png
425
684
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kim ‘634 by incorporating the teachings of Ding with a reasonable expectation of success in order to capture vehicle motion and provide a final state of the vehicle. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘634 in view of Gupta, Kim ‘697 and Kim ‘786, and further in view of US 20130317698 (“Yoon”) and US 20230071810 (“Lee”).
As per claim(s) 3, 9, Kim ‘634 does not explicitly disclose wherein the yaw rate
γ
^
[
t
]
is determined by an equation:
ρ
^
∙
V
x
^
=
γ
^
wherein
ρ
^
is the predicted curvature, wherein
V
x
^
=
V
x
+
α
∆
t
, wherein
V
x
is a speed of the vehicle, wherein
α
is an acceleration of the vehicle.
However, Yoon teaches wherein the yaw rate
γ
^
[
t
]
is determined by an equation:
ρ
^
∙
V
x
^
=
γ
^
wherein
ρ
^
is the predicted curvature, wherein
V
x
is a speed of the vehicle (see at least [0037]: When a curvature of a target circular route is calculated by the above method, a target yaw rate may be calculated by multiplying the curvature by a speed of a vehicle, and thus the multiple target yaw rate YR.sub.d,i may be calculated by Equation (6)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kim ‘634 by incorporating the teachings of Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine a target yaw rate and to provide improved lane keeping assistance. The combination would yield predictable results.
However, Lee teaches wherein
V
x
^
=
V
x
+
α
∆
t
, wherein
V
x
is a speed of the vehicle, wherein
α
is an acceleration of the vehicle (see at least [0067]: a discrete-time version of the kinematic bicycle model that may be used for modeling the ego agent 102 and computing control actions for other baseline methods may be executed as…
PNG
media_image4.png
13
104
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where
α
…acceleration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kim ‘634 by incorporating the teachings of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a discrete-time version of the kinematic bicycle model that may be used for modeling a vehicle and to determine an optimal path. The combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘634 in view of Gupta, Kim ‘697 and Kim ‘786, and further in view of US 20170235307 (“Asakura”).
As per claim(s) 4, 10, Kim ‘634 does not explicitly disclose wherein generating the predicted position includes: generating a plurality of predicted positions, and wherein each of the predicted positions is a predicted position generated at a predetermined time interval.
However, Asakura teaches wherein generating the predicted position includes: generating a plurality of predicted positions, and wherein each of the predicted positions is a predicted position generated at a predetermined time interval (see at least [0071]: track refers to an aggregate of points (loci) obtained by sampling, for each predetermined period, future target positions at which the subject vehicle M is assumed to arrive if the subject vehicle M travels in the traveling mode determined by the lane-keeping control unit 111, [0072]: sets, as the track of the subject vehicle M, future target positions such as K(1), K(2), and K(3) on the basis of the current position of the subject vehicle M every time a predetermined period Δt passes from the current time point. These target positions are hereinafter simply referred to as “target positions K” unless the target positions are distinguished from one another…For example, if the target time T is five seconds, the lane-keeping control unit 111 sets the target positions K on a line along the center of the traveling lane at every predetermined period Δt (e.g., 0.1 seconds) within five seconds and determines the intervals between the plurality of target position K on the basis of the traveling mode, [0074]: FIG. 5(C), if the road is curved, the lane-keeping control unit 111 determines that the traveling mode is cornering mode…generates a track by, for example, arranging the plurality of target positions K while changing lateral positions (positions in width direction of lane) of the subject vehicle M relative to the traveling direction in accordance with the curvature of the road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kim ‘634 by incorporating the teachings of Asakura with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve automatic driving safety. The combination would yield predictable results.
As per claim(s) 5, 11, Kim ‘634 does not explicitly disclose wherein the generating the predicted positions includes: generating the predicted positions up to a predetermined time later.
However, Asakura teaches wherein the generating the predicted positions includes: generating the predicted positions up to a predetermined time later (see at least [0071]: track refers to an aggregate of points (loci) obtained by sampling, for each predetermined period, future target positions at which the subject vehicle M is assumed to arrive if the subject vehicle M travels in the traveling mode determined by the lane-keeping control unit 111, [0072]: sets, as the track of the subject vehicle M, future target positions such as K(1), K(2), and K(3) on the basis of the current position of the subject vehicle M every time a predetermined period Δt passes from the current time point. These target positions are hereinafter simply referred to as “target positions K” unless the target positions are distinguished from one another…For example, if the target time T is five seconds, the lane-keeping control unit 111 sets the target positions K on a line along the center of the traveling lane at every predetermined period Δt (e.g., 0.1 seconds) within five seconds and determines the intervals between the plurality of target position K on the basis of the traveling mode, [0074]: FIG. 5(C), if the road is curved, the lane-keeping control unit 111 determines that the traveling mode is cornering mode…generates a track by, for example, arranging the plurality of target positions K while changing lateral positions (positions in width direction of lane) of the subject vehicle M relative to the traveling direction in accordance with the curvature of the road).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Kim ‘634 by incorporating the teachings of Asakura with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve automatic driving safety. The combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150321696 (“Jang”) (see at least [0012]: recognizing an abnormal condition of a sensor that detects a stroke of a rear wheel actuator of the vehicle; determining whether the vehicle is traveling straight; and when it is determined that the vehicle is traveling straight, stopping an operation of the rear wheel steering and converting a current mode to a mode of steering the vehicle only with front wheel steering, [0013]: determining of whether the vehicle is traveling straight may include: calculating a speed of the vehicle; calculating a steering angular velocity of the vehicle; calculating torque of a steering column of the vehicle; and determining a curvature of a lane along which the vehicle is traveling).
US 20030080877 (“Takagi”) (see at least abstract: parking maneuver, [0049]: vehicle state calculating unit 24 calculates a projected path (hereinafter referred to as "projected path of travel") X along which it is estimated that the vehicle will actually travel based on the turning radius R estimated).
US 11845428 (“Kim ‘428”) (see at least column 5 lines 44-46: Ackerman steer angle calculates path curvature from the road wheel angle δ.sub.rwa (in units of radians [rad]) and the wheelbase length L (in units of [m]), column 12 lines 58-60: At step 604, the processor uses a kinematics control (e.g., kinematics 501) to determine path curvatures according to kinematics and Ackerman steering angle, column 12 lines 65-67: At step 608, the processor predicts the ego vehicle motion path or trajectory using at least the lateral offset, heading offset, path curvature and rate of curvature).
US 20230101438 (“Kim ‘438”) (see at least [0037]: Ackerman steer angle calculates path curvature from the road wheel angle δ.sub.rwa (in units of radians [rad]), the turning radius R (in units of radians [rad]), and the wheelbase length L (in units of [m]), [0076]: determine a final predicted path curvature so that the predicted path is determined).
US 20200254996 (“Kashiwamura”) (see at least [0063]: route standard yaw rate calculation portion 15 calculates the route standard yaw rate. A route standard yaw rate γcourse can be calculated by, for example, multiplying a curvature κcourse of the route ahead of the vehicle by a vehicle body speed V).
US 20230211824 (“Sakaguchi”) (see at least [0166]: driving assistance ECU 1 calculates a predicted trajectory 54 of the own vehicle 50 to a predetermined distance (or after a predetermined time) from driving states such as a vehicle speed, a yaw rate, and a steering angle of the own vehicle 50, [0167]: driving assistance ECU 1 calculates a predicted route 53 from the current position P1 of the center 51 of the rear wheel axle of the own vehicle 50 to an estimated position P4 of the center 51 of the rear wheel axle after traveling a predetermined distance (for example, 100 m), and calculates estimated positions P2 and P3 of the center 51 of the rear wheel axle at predetermined distance intervals (or time intervals). A line connecting the current position P1 to the estimated position P4 is the predicted route 53.).
US 20200001921 (“Balesteros”) (see at least [0007]: estimated vector of states at each instant of following of a lane by the vehicle moving at a current speed, [0067]: module 14 and the module 19 have in common that they generate a vector quantity which takes into account the estimated state vector {circumflex over (ξ)} at the instant k and the curvatures γ.sub.k+i at the vehicle's expected locations of the lane at each future instant k+i of displacement of the vehicle, i varying from 1 to N. The integer number N thus designates the amount of forthcoming samplings which, generally performed with a constant period, establishes a time window dubbed the “prediction horizon” in which the prediction is performed. Its value is parametrizable so as to be able to adjust it in a trial-vehicle fine tuning phase, so as to be carried over thereafter to mass-production vehicles. The number N is generally chosen so as to obtain a time window of the order of 1 to 5 seconds, typically corresponding to a safety distance before collision with an obstacle).
US 20140121880 (“Dolgov”) (see at least [0094]: computing device may be configured to estimate discretized longitudinal positions of the vehicle 402 during the respective interval of time…vehicle position can be estimated at discrete instants of time every 100 millisecond in the region at which the vehicle 402 will likely be laterally adjacent to the object 410A. Future longitudinal positions of the vehicle 402 may be estimated with respect to each identified object, during each respective interval of time),
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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 at 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668