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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 02 December 2024. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Foreign Priority
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. JP2024-051093, filed on 27 March 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
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 1-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…set a target inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and a front vehicle in front of the host vehicle to be shorter than when the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is faster than the speed of the host vehicle” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how the target inter-vehicle distance is shorter than “when…”, i.e. how a distance is compared with a point in time (when…). Further, it is not clear whether the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle OR faster than the speed of the host vehicle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 2 recites “…set the target inter-vehicle distance so that the greater a difference between the representative speed and the speed of the host vehicle, the shorter the target inter-vehicle distance compared to when the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is faster than the speed of the host vehicle” which is ambiguous. It is not clear when setting the target inter-vehicle distance… “the greater a difference between the representative speed and the speed of the host vehicle” “the shorter the target inter-vehicle distance…”, it is for both the representative speed being bigger than the host vehicle speed and the representative speed being smaller than the host vehicle speed OR one of the scenarios. Further, similar to claim 1, it is not clear how the target inter-vehicle distance is shorter than “when…”, i.e. how a distance is compared with a point in time (when…). And it is not clear whether the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle OR faster than the speed of the host vehicle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 3 recites “…the shorter the target inter-vehicle distance compared to when the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is faster than the speed of the host vehicle” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how the target inter-vehicle distance is shorter than “when…”, i.e. how a distance is compared with a point in time (when…). Further, it is not clear whether the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle OR faster than the speed of the host vehicle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 4 recites “…another vehicle” in line 3, while claim 1 from which claim 4 is dependent, recites “…another vehicle” in line 3. It is not clear if “another vehicle” of claim 4 is the same “another vehicle” in claim 1 OR is a different vehicle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 4 recites “…decide to control the host vehicle so that a time required for the distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle to become the target inter-vehicle distance is longer than when it has been determined that the representative speed is not slower than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is slower than the speed of the host vehicle and a distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle is greater than the target inter-vehicle distance” which is ambiguous. It is not clear how “a time required…” is compared with “when…”, i.e., how a period of time (“a time required”) is compared with a point in time (“when…”). Further, the relationship between the two “when…” clauses is not clear. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 5 recites “…to decrease the speed of the host vehicle at a first deceleration rate until the speed of the host vehicle coincides with the representative speed, and then to decrease the speed of the host vehicle at a second deceleration rate less than the first deceleration rate, so that the distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle becomes the target inter-vehicle distance, when it has been determined that the representative speed is slower than the speed of the host vehicle and a distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle is longer than the target inter-vehicle distance” which is ambiguous. It is not clear “when it has been determined that…a distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle is longer than the target inter-vehicle distance”, how slowing down the host vehicle could make this distance smaller so as to reach the “target…distance”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claims have been interpreted as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of the dependency on previously rejected 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle control device (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle control device comprising:
a processor configured to
determine whether a representative speed of another vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane adjacent to a traveling lane in which a host vehicle is traveling is faster than a speed of the host vehicle, and
set a target inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and a front vehicle in front of the host vehicle to be shorter than when the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is faster than the speed of the host vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine...” and “set…” in the context of this claim encompass a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle control device comprising:
a processor configured to
determine whether a representative speed of another vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane adjacent to a traveling lane in which a host vehicle is traveling is faster than a speed of the host vehicle, and
set a target inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and a front vehicle in front of the host vehicle to be shorter than when the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is faster than the speed of the host vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a processor…”, it merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determine… and set…steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determine…and set... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniguchi (JP2003025868A, paragraphs cited based on the attached machine translated copy).
As to claim 1, Taniguchi teaches a vehicle control device comprising:
a processor configured to (Taniguchi para 0039)
determine whether a representative speed of another vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane adjacent to a traveling lane in which a host vehicle is traveling is faster than a speed of the host vehicle (Taniguchi claim 4: an adjacent vehicle speed detection means for detecting the speed of an adjacent vehicle, an adjacent vehicle speed comparison means for comparing the speed of the adjacent vehicle with the own vehicle speed), and
set a target inter-vehicle distance between the host vehicle and a front vehicle in front of the host vehicle to be shorter than when the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is faster than the speed of the host vehicle (Taniguchi claim 4: a vehicle distance control means for controlling the vehicle distance so that the vehicle distance from the own vehicle to the preceding vehicle becomes a target vehicle distance…, para 0121: the specified speed Vα is set to be larger the longer the representative distance that characterizes the inter-vehicle distance of the adjacent vehicle ahead of the lane change, and smaller the shorter the representative distance).
As to claim 2, The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to set the target inter-vehicle distance so that the greater a difference between the representative speed and the speed of the host vehicle, the shorter the target inter-vehicle distance compared to when the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is faster than the speed of the host vehicle (Taniguchi para 0121: the specified speed Vα is set to be larger the longer the representative distance that characterizes the inter-vehicle distance of the adjacent vehicle ahead of the lane change, and smaller the shorter the representative distance, also see claims 4-5).
As to claim 3, The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to set the target inter-vehicle distance so that the longer an average inter-vehicle distance of other vehicles in the adjacent lane, the shorter the target inter-vehicle distance compared to when the representative speed is equal to or less than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is faster than the speed of the host vehicle (Taniguchi para 0121: the specified speed Vα is set to be larger the longer the representative distance that characterizes the inter-vehicle distance of the adjacent vehicle ahead of the lane change, and smaller the shorter the representative distance, also see claims 4-5).
As to claim 4, The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether the representative speed of another vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane adjacent to the traveling lane in which the host vehicle is traveling is slower than the speed of the host vehicle, and decide to control the host vehicle so that a time required for the distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle to become the target inter-vehicle distance is longer than when it has been determined that the representative speed is not slower than the speed of the host vehicle, when it has been determined that the representative speed is slower than the speed of the host vehicle and a distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle is greater than the target inter-vehicle distance (Taniguchi para 0108: in order to make the time required for the vehicle and the adjacent vehicle to pass each other approximately the same regardless of whether the distance between the adjacent vehicle at the lane change destination is long or short, and to make the time required for the driver to find space to enter the lane change destination approximately the same, the abovementioned specified speed Vα is set to be larger the longer the representative distance characterizing the distance between the adjacent vehicle at the lane change destination is, and smaller the shorter the representative distance is, also see claims 4-5).
As to claim 5, The vehicle control device according to claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to decide to control the host vehicle to decrease the speed of the host vehicle at a first deceleration rate until the speed of the host vehicle coincides with the representative speed, and then to decrease the speed of the host vehicle at a second deceleration rate less than the first deceleration rate, so that the distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle becomes the target inter-vehicle distance, when it has been determined that the representative speed is slower than the speed of the host vehicle and a distance between the host vehicle and the front vehicle is longer than the target inter-vehicle distance (Taniguchi para 0114: …the target vehicle speed selection unit 26 checks whether the target vehicle speed is greater than (Vn+Vα), and if the target vehicle speed is greater, in step 756, a new target vehicle speed is calculated using a predetermined deceleration…, also see para 0107).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664