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 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 8-15 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) an apparatus, an apparatus, and a method. (Step 1: Yes.) Apparatus claim 1 has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
An apparatus configured to transmit and/or receive and process automated driving related information, the apparatus comprising:
a transceiver; and
a processor configured to transmit and/or receive the automated driving related information with a user terminal through the transceiver and process the automated driving related information,
wherein the processor is configured to obtain information on a priority of the automated driving related information to be transmitted to the user terminal, and
wherein in a case in which the processor transmits a plurality of different types of automated driving related information, the processor is configured to transmit the plurality of the different types of the automated driving related information to the user terminal according to the obtained information on the priority.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim involves a mental process of ordering a plurality of obtained data sets based on priority values associated with said data sets. This is a process which can be performed in the human mind; therefore, the claim falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites a transceiver, a processor, and a user terminal; these elements are recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claim additionally recites transmission of a plurality of different types of automated driving related information; however, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are all recited at so high a level of generality as to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 1 (and the similar claim 16) is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites many of the same elements as independent claim 1, replacing the user terminal with an automated driving system and the transmission step with a processing step. The former merely links the abstract idea with the field of use of autonomous vehicles, and the latter is itself abstract. Therefore, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 and 9-15 further define the abstract idea, and are thus abstract for the same reasons. The claims do not recite any additional elements; therefore, claims 2-7 and 9-15 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohashi et al. (US 20220219711).
Claim 8.
Ohashi et al. teaches:
An apparatus configured to transmit and/or receive and process automated driving related information
(Ohashi – Abstract) “The processor is configured to receive, from the applications, application requests and identifiers that identify the respective applications.”
a transceiver
(Ohashi – Abstract) “The processor is configured to receive… The processor is configured to output a request”
a processor configured to transmit and/or receive the automated driving related information to or from an automated driving system through the transceiver and process the received automated driving related information
(Ohashi – Abstract) “The processor is configured to receive, from the applications, application requests and identifiers that identify the respective applications.”
wherein the processor is configured to obtain information on a priority of the automated driving related information to be received from the automated driving system
(Ohashi – Abstract) “a memory configured to store information related to priority levels of a plurality of applications that implements driving assistance functions and a processor.”
wherein based on receiving or processing a plurality of different types of automated driving related information from the automated driving system, the processor is configured to process the plurality of the different types of the automated driving related information according to the obtained information on the priority
(Ohashi – Abstract) “information related to priority levels of a plurality of applications… The processor is configured to arbitrate a plurality of the application requests based on the information and the identifiers. The processor is configured to output a request to an actuator based on a result of arbitration of the application requests.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. in view of Iijima (US 20180270841) in view of Mihaly et al. (US 20140334309).
Claim 1.
Ohashi et al. teaches:
An apparatus configured to transmit and/or receive and process automated driving related information
(Ohashi – Abstract) “The processor is configured to receive, from the applications, application requests and identifiers that identify the respective applications.”
a transceiver
(Ohashi – Abstract) “The processor is configured to receive… The processor is configured to output a request”
a processor configured to transmit and/or receive the automated driving related information
(Ohashi – Abstract) “The processor is configured to receive, from the applications, application requests and identifiers that identify the respective applications.”
wherein the processor is configured to obtain information on a priority of the automated driving related information
(Ohashi – Abstract) “a memory configured to store information related to priority levels of a plurality of applications that implements driving assistance functions and a processor.”
While Ohashi et al. teaches determining an output based on the priority values of automated driving related information, Ohashi et al. does not explicitly teach a transmission priority; however, Iijima teaches:
a processor configured to transmit and/or receive the automated driving related information with a user terminal through the transceiver and process the automated driving related information
(Iijima – Abstract) “a priority determination unit that determines priority of transmission in accordance with a condition set in advance, based on types and combinations of the operating information and the behavior information”
wherein the processor is configured to obtain information on a priority of the automated driving related information to be transmitted to the user terminal
(Iijima – Abstract) “a priority determination unit that determines priority of transmission in accordance with a condition set in advance, based on types and combinations of the operating information and the behavior information”
wherein in a case in which the processor transmits a plurality of different types of automated driving related information, the processor is configured to transmit the plurality of the different types of the automated driving related information to the user terminal according to the obtained information on the priority
(Iijima – Abstract) “a bandwidth control unit that controls allocation of communication bandwidth for transmitting the operating information and the behavior information, based on a usage condition of communication bandwidth and the priority.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings, modifying the vehicle control device of Ohashi et al. with the transmission control system of Iijima. Both Ohashi et al. and Iijima are directed towards systems which output an instruction or instructions based on a priority level; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they could be combined with predictable results (i.e., a vehicle control device which receives requests with a priority level and outputs instructions based on the priority levels). One would have been motivated to do this in order to use the available communication bandwidth efficiently in transmitting instructions to the components (Iijima – [0007]).
Neither Ohashi et al. nor Iijima explicitly teaches a user terminal; however, Mihaly et al. teaches:
transmit and/or receive the automated driving related information with a user terminal
(Mihaly – [0007]) “controlling delivery of application data to or from a mobile terminal”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the vehicle control system of Ohashi et al. to communicate with a user terminal, as in Mihaly et al. Both Ohashi et al. and Mihaly et al. are directed towards prioritization of particular applications; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be made with predictable results (i.e., receiving or transmitting application data from a mobile terminal).
Claim 5.
The combination of Ohashi et al., Iijima, and Mihaly et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Ohashi et al. further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to obtain information on a priority of the automated driving related information to be received
(Ohashi – Abstract) “a memory configured to store information related to priority levels of a plurality of applications that implements driving assistance functions and a processor.”
wherein based on receiving or processing a plurality of different types of automated driving related information
(Ohashi – Abstract) “information related to priority levels of a plurality of applications… The processor is configured to arbitrate a plurality of the application requests based on the information and the identifiers. The processor is configured to output a request to an actuator based on a result of arbitration of the application requests.”
Mihaly et al. further teaches:
the user terminal
(Mihaly – [0007]) “controlling delivery of application data to or from a mobile terminal”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ohashi et al., Iijima, and Mihaly et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sethu et al. (US 20250074453).
Claim 2.
The combination of Ohashi et al., Iijima, and Mihaly et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 below, Ohashi et al. further teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
482
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: A priority level table according to Ohashi et al. (originally Ohashi Fig. 2)
a first type information including Minimal Risk Maneuver (MRM) execution notification or urgency safety information
With respect to Fig. 1 above, the urgency safety information corresponds to the collision avoidance assistance and/or the lane deviation warning applications.
a second type information including Minimal Risk Condition (MRC) arrival or manual driving request through user fallback
With respect to Fig. 1 above, the manual driving request through user fallback corresponds to the application of “Autonomous Driving (Level 3)”, as discussed in greater detail with respect to Sethu et al. below.
a third type information including configuration of driving related control or information requiring a user approval
With respect to Fig. 1 above, the configuration of driving related control corresponds to the automatic parking and/or steering wheel operation guidance applications.
Ohashi et al. does not explicitly teach a type of information including a manual driving request through user fallback; however, Sethu et al. teaches:
a second type information including Minimal Risk Condition (MRC) arrival or manual driving request through user fallback
(Sethu – [0014]) “In level 3 vehicles… The vehicle operator is only expected to be responsible for the DDT-fallback when the ADS 98 essentially ‘asks’ the driver to take over if something goes wrong”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the teachings of Sethu et al. regarding level 3 autonomous travel would be applicable to the level 3 autonomous travel taught by Ohashi et al.
Claim 3.
The combination of Ohashi et al., Iijima, Mihaly et al., and Sethu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Ohashi et al. further teaches:
wherein a priority of the first type information is set higher than a priority of the second type information, and wherein the priority of the second type information is set higher than a priority of the third type information
As shown in Fig. 1 above, the first type information (collision avoidance assistance) has a higher priority level than the second type information (level 3 autonomous driving), and the second type information has a higher priority level than the third type information (automatic parking).
Claim 4.
The combination of Ohashi et al., Iijima, Mihaly et al., and Sethu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Ohashi et al. further teaches:
wherein a priority of the second type information is set higher than a priority of the first type information, and wherein the priority of the first type information is set higher than a priority of the third type information
As shown in Fig. 1 above, the second type information (level 3 autonomous driving) has a higher priority level than the first type information (lane deviation warning), and the first type information has a higher priority level than the third type information (steering wheel operation guidance).
Claim 6.
The combination of Ohashi et al., Iijima, and Mihaly et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Ohashi et al. further teaches:
a fourth type information notifying that a user is unable to perform Dynamic Driving Task (DDT) fallback
With respect to Fig. 1 above, the DDT fallback notification corresponds to the autonomous driving (level 3) application, as discussed in further detail with respect to Sethu et al. below.
a fifth type information indicating a user’s response to configuration of driving related control or information requiring a user approval transmitted to the user terminal
With respect to Fig. 1 above, the configuration of driving related control corresponds to the automatic parking and/or steering wheel operation guidance applications.
Ohashi et al. does not explicitly teach DDT fallback; however, Sethu et al. teaches:
a fourth type information notifying that a user is unable to perform Dynamic Driving Task (DDT) fallback
(Sethu – [0014]) “In level 3 vehicles… The vehicle operator is only expected to be responsible for the DDT-fallback when the ADS 98 essentially ‘asks’ the driver to take over if something goes wrong”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 2.
Claim 7.
The combination of Ohashi et al., Iijima, Mihaly et al., and Sethu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Ohashi et al. further teaches:
wherein a priority of the fourth type information is set higher than a priority of the fifth type information
As shown in Fig. 1 above, the fourth type information (level 3 autonomous driving) has a higher priority level than the fifth type information (automatic parking).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sethu et al.
Claim 9.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 10.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 12.
The combination of Ohashi et al. and Sethu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Ohashi et al. further teaches:
wherein a priority of the second type information is set higher than a priority of the third type information, and wherein the priority of the third type information is set higher than a priority of the first type information
As shown in Fig. 1 above, the second type information (level 3 autonomous driving) has a higher priority level than the third type information (automatic parking), and the third type information has a higher priority level than the first type information (lane deviation warning).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohashi et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Iijima.
Claim 13.
While Ohashi et al. teaches determining an output based on the priority values of automated driving related information, Ohashi et al. does not explicitly teach a transmission priority; however, Iijima teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to obtain information on a priority of the automated driving related information to be transmitted to the automated driving system
(Iijima – Abstract) “a priority determination unit that determines priority of transmission in accordance with a condition set in advance, based on types and combinations of the operating information and the behavior information”
wherein in a case in which the processor transmits a plurality of different types of automated driving related information, the processor is configured to transmit the plurality of the different types of the automated driving related information to the automated driving system according to the obtained information on the priority
(Iijima – Abstract) “a priority determination unit that determines priority of transmission in accordance with a condition set in advance, based on types and combinations of the operating information and the behavior information”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ohashi et al. and Iijima as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Sethu et al.
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669