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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on November 14, 2024. Claims 1-6 are presently pending and are presented for examination. 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. JP2023-204792, filed on December 4, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 14, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 discloses 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 discloses 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:
“object detection section” in claims 1-4. A review of the specification shows that it is part of the clearance sonar ECU 20 in [0019].
“object recognition section ” in claim 1. A review of the specification shows that it embodies on a ECU (computer) ( [0014] + [0022], [0019] ).
“vehicle control section ” in claim 1. A review of the specification shows that it embodies on a ECU (computer) ( [0014] + [0019] ).
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, they 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 these limitations 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 1-6 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 “when there is a high probability” in claims 1, 5, and 6 is a subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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.
Neither the claims nor the specification clearly define a “high probability” or provide examples as to what probability or range of probabilities constitute a “high probability”, as such what probabilities constitute a “high probability” (and by extension what corresponding conditions infringe on the claims) is left only to the readers discretion. As such the corresponding bounds of protection for the claims varies from reader to reader based on their subjective interpretation of “high probability” renders the scope of protection unclear.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthaei et al., US 20230334836 A1 (Hereinafter, “Matthaei”) In view of Okabe et al., US 2023/0288559 A1 (Hereinafter, “Okabe”).
Regarding Claim 1, 5 and 6, Matthaei discloses the following limitation(s):
A vehicle driving support method/apparatus/program comprising: an object detection section that repeatedly obtains a detection point representing a position of an object around a host vehicle;
In Matthaei [0018], “object detection algorithms, wherein the at least two environment perception sensors have different characteristics with regard to object detection as a function of a distance of an object from the respective environment perception sensor, performing object detection repeatedly in succession for the respective environment sensors for dynamic object detection, entering the object detections together with position information.” In [0045], “FIG. 1 shows … utility vehicle 10 is equipped with environment perception sensors and a driver assistance system, which is supported by the object detections resulting from analysis of the data from the environment perception sensors. The driver assistance system relates to an emergency braking assistance system.” Also [0074], “It should be understood that the proposed method and the associated apparatuses can be implemented in various forms of hardware, software, firmware, special processors or a combination thereof.”
an object recognition section that repeatedly updates surrounding object information including object position recognition point that finally specifies said position of said object, based on said detection point obtained by said object detection section at a past time point and said detection point obtained by said object detection section at a present time point; See Matthaei [0028], “The repeated successive object detections are entered in an object list, wherein the object detections in the object lists of the environment perception sensors are correlated with one another … object localization takes place on the basis of the object detections.” And Matthaei [0036], “It is advantageous here if, for the purpose of object tracking, a trajectory is ascertained on which the positions of the continuous object detections of the object lie. Ascertaining the trajectory is advantageous for controlling the sensor data fusion. The reliability region is namely dependent on the object and the location of the object relative to the sensor.” Matthaei [0037] Said trajectory can be divided into segments which indicate from which environment perception sensor or sensors the measurement data is meant to be used for the actual calculation of the position of an object detection.”
a vehicle control section that performs an automatic braking to avoid a collision between said host vehicle and said object, when determining, based on said surrounding object information, that a predetermined automatic brake condition that becomes satisfied when there is a high probability that said host vehicle collides with said object becomes satisfied, See Fig.6 and [0060], “FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of the emergency braking assistant control-unit 184 … capable of performing the processing operations needed for the aforementioned sensor data fusion.“ Also [0070], “The joint object list 184-5 is used by the control program of the emergency braking assistant 184. In the joint object list 184-5 … If it is detected that the object is approaching the utility vehicle 10 too far and/or too quickly, emergency braking is performed to prevent a collision with the object.”
Matthaei discloses a vehicle support apparatus to perform automatic braking, but does not disclose conditions where the braking does not occur.
However, Okabe teaches A vehicle driving support apparatus [0031] + [0007], Which includes teaching the following:
wherein, said vehicle control section is configured not to perform said automatic braking when said object detection section does not obtain said detection point representing a position of said object that causes said automatic braking condition to become satisfied at a present time point. See, Okabe “[0211] The condition of the own vehicle speed is a case in which the own vehicle speed is high. As the own vehicle speed is higher, necessity of emergency braking is increased, so that the adverse effect is increased. On the other hand, in a case in which the speed of the own vehicle is zero, emergency braking is not required, so that there is no adverse effect.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Matthaei’s device with the decoupling limitations disclosed in Okabe with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to evaluate a ghost likelihood indicating a likelihood that the identified detection point is a ghost , see Okabe [0007].
Regarding Claim 2, Matthaei, as modified in claim 1, discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein, said vehicle control section is configured to alert a driver of said host vehicle, when determining, based on said surrounding object information, that a predetermined alert condition that becomes satisfied when said host vehicle has a high probability of colliding with said object and that is different from said automatic braking condition becomes satisfied, regardless of whether said object detection section obtains said detection point representing said position of said object that causes said alert condition to become satisfied at said present time point. See Okabe [0218], “Examples of the collision margin time threshold include a first margin time threshold indicating a margin time until it is determined to make a notification of approach of the obstacle and make advance warning of emergency braking, a second margin time threshold indicating a margin time until it is determined to perform emergency braking, and a third margin time threshold indicating a margin time until it is determined to perform decoupling.”
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Matthaei discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein, said object detection section is configured to obtain said detection point, based on at least See Fig.4 and Matthaei [0060]-[0062], “The reference sign 1CDP denotes the point of the first object detection by the front camera 182. The reference sign LCDP denotes the point of the last object detection by the front camera 182 under the given ambient conditions.” Also [0051-0054], “There are yet more environment sensors that are able to perceive the environment of the vehicle … Camera, range 100 m, used for capturing a 3D map, utilized for an automatic emergency braking assistant … Ultrasound sensor, range <10 m, parking assistant.”
said vehicle control section is configured to determine that said automatic braking condition becomes satisfied, when a condition that one or more of said object position recognition point is present in an expected travel area of said host vehicle becomes satisfied. See [0060], “FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of the emergency braking assistant control-unit 184. … The reference number 184-5 denotes a resultant object list in which sensor data fusion has increased the accuracy of the object localization.” [0070], “The joint object list 184-5 is used by the control program of the emergency braking assistant 184. In the joint object list 184-5, the letter F indicates which objects in the object list were determined by sensor data fusion. The letter R indicates which objects were determined solely from the data from the RADAR sensor 186. If it is detected that the object is approaching the utility vehicle 10 too far and/or too quickly, emergency braking is performed to prevent a collision with the object.”
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 20240134039 A1 by Sekiguchi et al.
US Publication US 20230234571 A1 by Sato et al.
US Publication US 20160016560 A1 by Parker et al
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM 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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669