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
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 3 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim elements; "an index value" … "a degree of cooperation (of claims 1, 6 & 8)", “prediction ( of claims 2-3, 7 & 9)” & “risk area” are functional terms without any structural support. Those terms are raising the questions of limitations, mechanism or algorithm, parameters etc. without structural disclosure.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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.
The term “a degree of cooperation” in claims 1, 6 & 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “degree of cooperation” 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. The term need to be defined in spec and/or in the claim.
The term “risk area” in claims 1, 3 & 5-9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “risk area, ” 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. The term need to be defined in spec and/or in the claim.
The term “index value decreases” in claims 1, 3 & 6-9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “index value” 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. The term need to be defined in spec and/or in the claim.
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 1-9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) "calculate an index value … set a risk area … generate a route " This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because "calculating" , "setting", "generating route" without any structure , algorithm or any specific technical mechanism; are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over , WATANABE et al., Pub.No.: US 20170357264 A1 in view of Tamaki et al., Pub. No.: US 20210089795 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 3 & 6-9, WATANABE et al. discloses a control device & method & a computer-readable storage medium for controlling a moving body moving autonomously, at least temporarily, in an area where pedestrians walk ([0045] “FIG. 1 ... The moving body 100 functions as a device to support movement of a user 150 by autonomously moving in front surrounding area of the user 150 who is moving.” & [0055] “The control unit 20 is constructed from a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory) and the like and functions as a control device for controlling whole of the moving body 100.”), the control device & method comprising
a processor configured to execute a program to ([0055] “The control unit 20 is constructed from a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory) and the like and functions as a control device for controlling whole of the moving body 100.”)):
recognize positions of the pedestrians in a time series ([0071] “The parameters indicating the user state include, for example, relative position (x0, y0) of the user 150 against the moving body 100, relative speed v0 of the user 150 against the moving body 100, relative moving direction θ0 of the user 150 against the moving body 100, body direction θB of the user 150 against the moving body 100 and the like.” & [0074] The relative position of the user 150 or the other person or obstacle existing in the surrounding area and the body direction of the user 150, for example, can be obtained by conducting image process for each of images imaged by a plurality of imaging devices (for example, cameras) arranged in the surrounding area of the main body unit 101 and edge extraction or pattern recognition.);
WATANABE et al. is not explicit on “calculate an index value”, however, Tamaki et al., US 20210089795 A1, teaches ESTIMATION DEVICE, ESTIMATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM and discloses;
(claims 8-9: A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium : see para. [0052] “The program may be stored in advance in a storage device (a storage device provided with a non-transitory storage medium)”).
calculate an index value indicating a degree of cooperation of each of the pedestrians on a basis of a result of the recognition ([0094] The risk estimation unit 141 estimates the prediction target region TA of a traffic participant, and determines whether or not the prediction target region TA is superimposed on the priority region PA. In a case where the prediction target region TA is superimposed on the priority region PA, the risk estimation unit 141 calculates a risk index value on the basis of a superimposition degree and distribution information. FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a content of distribution information. The distribution information is, for example, information indicating a distribution of a risk index value in the prediction target region TA for each attribute. As illustrated in FIG. 7, the risk index value is set to “1” at the target position TP, becomes smaller toward a position increasingly separated from the target position TP, and is set to “0” at the position of the movement radius mr from the target position TP. The risk estimation unit 141 estimates a risk for the own vehicle M to become higher as the risk index value becomes greater (that is, as the target position TP comes closer to the priority region PA), and estimates a risk for the own vehicle M to become lower as the risk index value becomes smaller (that is, as the target position TP becomes more distant from the priority region PA). The risk estimation unit 141 identifies a position farthest from the target position TP in a region where the prediction target region TA is superimposed on the priority region PA. The risk estimation unit 141 acquires the risk index value on the basis of a distance from the identified position to the target position TP and the distribution information. The risk estimation unit 141 performs the process of acquiring the risk index value for each temporary target trajectory trT.);
set a risk area around each of the pedestrians, the risk area becoming larger as the index value decreases (([0094] “The distribution information is, for example, information indicating a distribution of a risk index value in the prediction target region TA for each attribute. As illustrated in FIG. 7, the risk index value is set to “1” at the target position TP, becomes smaller toward a position increasingly separated from the target position TP, and is set to “0” at the position of the movement radius mr from the target position TP. The risk estimation unit 141 estimates a risk for the own vehicle M to become higher as the risk index value becomes greater (that is, as the target position TP comes closer to the priority region PA), and estimates a risk for the own vehicle M to become lower as the risk index value becomes smaller (that is, as the target position TP becomes more distant from the priority region PA). The risk estimation unit 141 identifies a position farthest from the target position TP in a region where the prediction target region TA is superimposed on the priority region PA. The risk estimation unit 141 acquires the risk index value on the basis of a distance from the identified position to the target position TP and the distribution information. The risk estimation unit 141 performs the process of acquiring the risk index value for each temporary target trajectory trT.)); and
generate a route for the moving body to follow in the future to avoid the risk area ([0056] - [0057] The target trajectory generation unit 142 generates one or more temporary target trajectories on which the own vehicle M automatedly (regardless of an operation of a driver) travels in the future such that the own vehicle can travel in a recommended lane determined by the recommended lane determining unit 61 in principle and can cope with a peripheral situation of the own vehicle M.” & [0058] In a scene in which a risk is estimated by the risk estimation unit 141, the target trajectory generation unit 142 determines a target trajectory from among one or more temporary target trajectories on the basis of a risk for the own vehicle M estimated for each temporary target trajectory by the risk estimation unit 141.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Tamaki et al. with the system disclosed by WATANABE et al. in order to recognize a surrounding environment of a moving object in recognition regions and to estimate a risk for the moving object on the basis of a recognition result from the recognition unit, in which the recognition unit sets a priority region on which a recognition process is preferentially performed among the recognition regions (see Abstract and para.[0017]).
Further WATANABE et al. discloses;
(claims 3, 7 & 9 only) wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to repeatedly execute prediction of, at a first point in time, a position of the pedestrian at a second point in time later than the first point in time and calculation of, at the second point in time, a difference between the recognized position of the pedestrian and the predicted position of the pedestrian in a time series, and calculate the index value to become larger as a total value of the difference increases (Ref. para. see: [0089]-[0095] & [0165] -[0168] “after the prediction time t is predicted as one of the future situation and each of the predicted movement area is o10 evaluated by the score. ... The prediction time t is calculated from (Δx−α)/Δv. Here, Δv is a value larger than 0.” & [0093] “the prediction time t is calculated as a time till … prediction time t is made a variable value” & [0094] “Existence probability of the other person 200 after the prediction time t becomes higher as closer to the center.” & [0165] -[0168] “the prediction time t is changed each time corresponding to the flow speed in the surrounding area of the user. For example, it may be conceivable that when the flow in the surrounding area of the user is comparatively slow, the prediction time t is made longer and as the flow in the surrounding area of the user becomes faster, the prediction time t is made shorter.”).
Regarding claim 2, WATANABE et al. discloses the control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to repeatedly execute prediction of, at a first point in time, a position of the pedestrian at a second point in time later than the first point in time and calculation of, at the second point in time, a difference between the recognized position of the pedestrian and the predicted position of the pedestrian in a time series, and calculate the index value to become larger as a total value of the difference increases (As in claim 3, see Ref. para. : [0089]-[0095] “The prediction time t is calculated from (Δx−α)/Δv. Here, Δv is a value larger than 0.” & [0093] “the prediction time t is calculated as a time till … prediction time t is made a variable value” & [0094] “Existence probability of the other person 200 after the prediction time t becomes higher as closer to the center.” & [0165] -[0168] “the prediction time t is variable value” … “the prediction time t is changed each time corresponding to the flow speed in the surrounding area of the user.”).
Regarding claims 4-5, WATANABE et al. discloses the control device according to claim 1.
WATANABE et al. is not explicit on “calculate an index value”, however, Tamaki et al., US 20210089795 A1, teaches ESTIMATION DEVICE, ESTIMATION METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM and discloses;
(claim 4) wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to calculate the index value by narrowing down targets to pedestrians who are passing by the moving body or other pedestrians (Ref. para. shows the narrowing/limiting/filtering capability of the index value calculation for a better risk estimation, see : [0056] - [0058] “a risk is estimated by the risk estimation unit 141, the target trajectory generation unit 142 determines a target trajectory from among one or more temporary target trajectories on the basis of a risk for the own vehicle M estimated for each temporary target trajectory by the risk estimation unit 141.” & [0094] “the risk estimation unit 141 calculates a risk index value on the basis of a superimposition degree and distribution information. ... indicating a distribution of a risk index value in the prediction target region TA for each attribute.” & [0096] “a plurality of traffic participants are present in a region where the prediction target region TA is superimposed on the priority region PA, the risk estimation unit 141 estimates the prediction target region TA for each traffic participant, superimposes the prediction target regions on a road plane, and uses a sum of risk index values related to the prediction target regions TA as a risk index value in a case where both of the prediction target region TA based on a first traffic participant and the prediction target region TA based on a second traffic participant are superimposed at a certain location of the priority region PA. Since a traffic participant is not limited to standing still, the risk estimation unit 141 may derive a risk index value by taking into consideration the passage of time.).
(claim 5) wherein the processor is configured to execute the program to set the risk area using a value near an upper limit of a possible range of the index value instead of the index value for pedestrians for whom the index value has not been calculated ([0094] “FIG. 7, the risk index value is set to “1” at the target position TP, becomes smaller toward a position increasingly separated from the target position TP, and is set to “0” at the position of the movement radius mr from the target position TP. The risk estimation unit 141 estimates a risk for the own vehicle M to become higher as the risk index value becomes greater (that is, as the target position TP comes closer to the priority region PA), and estimates a risk for the own vehicle M to become lower as the risk index value becomes smaller (that is, as the target position TP becomes more distant from the priority region PA).” & [0106] -[0107] “the priority region setting unit 131 enlarges the priority region PA according to the degree of turning of the temporary target trajectory trT, and thus it is possible to perform a recognition process on a range that is difficult for recognized by the surrounding environment recognition unit 132 to recognize with high accuracy.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Tamaki et al. with the system disclosed by WATANABE et al. in order to recognize a surrounding environment of a moving object in recognition regions and to estimate a risk for the moving object on the basis of a recognition result from the recognition unit, in which the recognition unit sets a priority region on which a recognition process is preferentially performed among the recognition regions (see Abstract and para.[0017]).).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jalal C CODUROGLU whose telephone number is (408)918-7527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8-6 PT.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/Jalal C CODUROGLU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665