DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 11/26/2024. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/26/2024 is in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 2-3 and 5, it appears that “a current frame,” “a previous frame,” “a traveling lane,” and “a specific feature” should respectively be changed to “the current frame,” “the previous frame,” “the traveling lane,” and “the specific feature” to correspond with “a current frame,” “a previous frame,” “a traveling lane,” and “a specific feature” introduced in claim 1.
In each of claims 2-6, it appears that “a lane change” should be changed to “the lane change” to correspond with “a lane change” introduced in claim 1.
In claim 5, it appears that “a difference between a spectral centroid of the current frame” should be changed to “a difference between the spectral centroid of the current frame.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 limitations use 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 limitations is/are: “a lane change detection apparatus” for performing the lane change detection method of claim 8.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (¶ 96: “The program includes instructions (or software code) for causing the computer 90 to perform one or more functions of the lane change detection apparatuses 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, and 10E described above when loaded into the computer. The above-described components of the lane change detection apparatuses 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, and 10E may be implemented by the processor 91 reading and executing the program stored in the storage 93. Further, the above-described storage functions of the lane change detection apparatuses 10, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, and 10E may be implemented by the memory 92 or the storage 93.”) 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 limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8-9:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a lane change detection apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor. Claim 8 is directed to the corresponding method, and claim 9 is directed to the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claims 1 and 8-9 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1 and 8-9 recite the abstract concept of detecting a lane change. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 1 and 8-9 by the mental process step of detecting whether there is a lane change of the vehicle, based on a specific feature in a current frame of the vehicle vibration, and a traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in a previous frame of the vehicle vibration. This step falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as it includes a human mentally identifying whether there is a lane change of the vehicle based on the acquired vibration data and based on a lane that the vehicle traveled in in a previous frame of the vehicle vibration. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
With respect to claims 1 and 8-9, other than reciting “at least one processor,” “a lane change detection apparatus,” and “a computer,” nothing in the claims precludes the abstract idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “processor,” “lane change detection apparatus,” and “computer” language, the claims encompass a human mentally detecting whether there is a lane change of the vehicle based on the acquired vibration data and based on a lane that the vehicle traveled in in a previous frame of the vehicle vibration.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a lane change detection apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor. These are generic computer components (in light of instant specification ¶ 95) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computer components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites that the processor is configured to acquire, from a sensing apparatus configured to measure vibration generated on a road by using an optical fiber embedded in the road, vehicle vibration data indicating vibration generated by traveling of a vehicle on the road. This step is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as it simply gathers data necessary for performing the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The mere recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 8 recites a lane change detection apparatus, which is a generic computer component (in light of instant specification ¶¶ 93-97) that is simply employed as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computer components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 8 also recites a step of acquiring vehicle vibration data; this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as explained regarding claim 1 above.
Claim 9 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer, which are generic computer components (in light of instant specification ¶¶ 93-97) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computer components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 9 also recites a step of acquiring vehicle vibration data; this step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as explained regarding claim 1 above.
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the memory, processor(s), lane change detection apparatus, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and computer are anything other than conventional computer components. The use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the step of acquiring vehicle vibration data is merely insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1 and 8-9 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 2-7:
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, and 7 recite the additional mental process steps of calculating average vibration intensity as a specific feature in a current frame of the vehicle vibration; detecting whether there is a lane change of the vehicle, based on a traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in a previous frame of the vehicle vibration and a comparison result between the average vibration intensity in the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a threshold value; calculating average vibration intensity of a specific frequency band as a specific feature in a current frame of the vehicle vibration; detecting whether there is a lane change of the vehicle, based on a traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in a previous frame of the vehicle vibration and a comparison result between the average vibration intensity of the specific frequency band in the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a threshold value; calculate a spectral centroid of a frequency spectrum as a specific feature in a current frame of the vehicle vibration; calculate a centroid shift amount being a difference between a spectral centroid of the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a spectral centroid of a previous frame of the vehicle vibration; detecting whether there is a lane change of the vehicle, based on a traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in the previous frame of the vehicle vibration and a comparison result between the centroid shift amount in the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a threshold value; and determining, when it is determined that a lane change of the vehicle occurs, a position where the lane change of the vehicle occurs on the road, and in a case where a lane change occurs a predetermined number of times or more at the position, determining the position as an abnormality occurrence position.
The steps listed above fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because they encompass a human using pen and paper to perform mathematical calculations necessary for calculating the average vibration intensity in a current frame of the vehicle vibration; mentally compare the average vibration intensity in the current frame to a threshold value to determine whether there is a lane change of the vehicle; perform mathematical calculations necessary for calculating the average vibration intensity of a specific frequency band in the current frame of the vehicle vibration; mentally compare the average vibration intensity of the specific frequency band to a threshold value to determine whether there is a lane change of the vehicle; perform the mathematical calculations necessary for calculating a spectral centroid of a frequency spectrum in the current frame of the vehicle vibration; perform mathematical calculations necessary for calculating a centroid shift amount between a spectral centroid of the current frame of the vehicle vibration and a spectral centroid of a previous frame of the vehicle vibration; mentally compare the centroid shift amount in the current frame to a threshold value to determine whether there is a lane change of the vehicle; mentally identify a position where the lane change of the vehicle occurs on the road; and mentally identify the position as an abnormality occurrence position when a lane change occurs a predetermined number of times or more at the identified position. Accordingly, the limitations are drafted are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, could be performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper.
The dependent claims also recite limitations that further define the mental process. For example, claim 4 recites that the specific frequency band is a band in which a difference between average vibration intensity of the vehicle vibration before a lane change of the vehicle and average vibration intensity of the vehicle vibration after the lane change of the vehicle is equal to or greater than a predetermined value. Limitations such as these do not preclude the abstract idea from being practically performed in the human mind, and are treated as additional mental process steps.
Claim 6 recites a learning model being trained, with a feature amount when the lane change of the vehicle occurs, in advance. Claim 6 also recites the steps of inputting, to the learning model, the specific feature in the current frame of the vehicle vibration and traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in the previous frame of the vehicle vibration as a feature amount; and detecting whether there is a lane change of the vehicle, based on an output of the learning model. These limitations amount to general linking of the abstract idea to the particular technological environment of machine learning. Such limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because they are recited at a high level of generality and because they merely specify that machine learning technology is employed for performing the steps of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As explained above, the dependent claims only recite additional mental process steps, limitations further defining the mental process, and limitations that amount to general linking of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-7 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.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (CN 115331455 A), hereinafter referred to as Zeng.
Regarding claim 1:
Zeng discloses the following limitations:
“A lane change detection apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions.” (Zeng p. 4 discloses “an electronic device, including: a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and operable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program The steps of the above-mentioned road vehicle lane-level positioning and vehicle situation monitoring method are realized at the same time.”)
“to acquire, from a sensing apparatus configured to measure vibration generated on a road by using an optical fiber embedded in the road, vehicle vibration data indicating vibration generated by traveling of a vehicle on the road.” (Zeng p. 3: “The vibration signal when the vehicle passes by is sensed across the optical fiber, and sent to the optical fiber sensing device as a lane reference signal.”)
“and detect whether there is a lane change of the vehicle, based on a specific feature in a current frame of the vehicle vibration, and a traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in a previous frame of the vehicle vibration.” (Zeng p. 6: “When the vehicle reaches point A, the lane where the vehicle is located is known. … When the vibration signal perceived at a certain point is stronger than that of [point] A, it means that the vehicle is changing lanes towards the side where the optical fiber is laid. When the vibration signal perceived at a certain point is weaker than that of [point] A, it means that the vehicle is moving away from the road. Lane change on the fiber laying side.”)
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 9:
Zeng discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute: a procedure.” (Zeng p. 4 discloses “a computer-readable storage medium, where a computer program is stored in the computer-readable storage medium, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the above-mentioned lane-level positioning and vehicle condition monitoring of road vehicles can be realized.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 9 are disclosed by Zeng based on the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mao et al. (CN 116206462 A), hereinafter referred to as Mao.
Regarding claim 6:
Zeng discloses “The lane change detection apparatus according to claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the apparatus “further comprising a learning model being trained, with a feature amount when the lane change of the vehicle occurs, in advance, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: input, to the learning model, the specific feature in the current frame of the vehicle vibration and the traveling lane in which the vehicle has traveled in the previous frame of the vehicle vibration as a feature amount; and detect whether there is a lane change of the vehicle, based on an output of the learning model.” However, Mao does teach these limitations. (Mao p. 6: “Use the vibration signal sample sets corresponding to vehicle speeding, illegal parking, and overtaking lane change for the training of one-dimensional convolutional neural network to obtain the model file for vehicle violation recognition, and then use the real-time collected vibration signals for trained vehicle violation recognition The model file of the output vehicle violation classification results.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zeng by using a trained learning model to identify a lane change by analyzing vibration data as taught by Mao with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Mao p. 2 teaches that this can help to “provide a rural road vehicle violation optical fiber sensing and deep learning early warning system, which can work in harsh environments, has high measurement sensitivity and precision, is convenient for networking, and has the advantages of convolutional neural network method. High recognition rate and strong robustness.”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagata et al. (WO 2016/030934 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nagata.
Regarding claim 7:
Zeng discloses “The lane change detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine, when it is determined that a lane change of the vehicle occurs, a position where the lane change of the vehicle occurs on the road.” (Zeng p. 6: “the position of the vehicle can be accurately judged, that is, which lane the vehicle is in. As shown in Figure 2(a), when the trolley drives past the position where the optical fiber is laid across the road, the lane where the vehicle is located can be judged.”)
Zeng does not explicitly teach to, “in a case where a lane change occurs a predetermined number of times or more at the position, determine the position as an abnormality occurrence position.” However, Nagata does teach this limitation. (Nagata p. 3: “the trend estimating unit estimates a tendency of lane change of the plurality of moving bodies at each position. Generally, at a position where an abnormality occurs, there is a high possibility that the lane change is frequently performed in order to avoid obstacles and the like that have occurred. Therefore, according to this aspect, the information processing apparatus can preferably detect the position where the abnormality occurs.” Further, Nagata p. 8: “the server device 4 sets the point B, which is a point at which the frequency of the line-of-sight direction differs by more than the threshold value between the normal time and the nearest time and the lane change frequency differs by more than the threshold value between the normal time and the latest time as the abnormality occurrence point.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Zeng by identifying an abnormality based on determining that there is a high number of lane changes at a certain position as taught by Nagata with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Nagata p. 3 teaches that the identified abnormality could be indicative of an obstacle in the roadway. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that recognizing the abnormality would allow for measures to be taken to remove an obstacle from the roadway or otherwise address the cause of the abnormality so that traffic flow could be improved.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takahashi et al. (US 2024/0385032 A1) Abstract discloses a system for detecting vibration data based on sensor signals from optical fibers in the road, where the system can “detect, for each of the plurality of lanes, a traveling state of the vehicle traveling in the lane based on the vibration data calculated for the lane.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662