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 .
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. JP2022102720, filed on 06/27/2022. Therefore, this is the effective filing date for this application.
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.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 1 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, nor is the abstract idea as a judicial exception integrated into a practical application. With regards to step 1, the claimed invention is directed to a method.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
For step 2A, prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed under MPEP 2106.04 to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following 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 in bold text).
Claim 1 recites:
A map generation device comprising:
an information acquisition unit that acquires positional information on a specific vehicle and positional information on a surrounding vehicle that is positioned around the specific vehicle from on-board devices that are arranged respectively on the specific vehicle and the surrounding vehicle, respectively;
a distance calculator that calculates a distance between the specific vehicle and the surrounding vehicle based on the positional information on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the surrounding vehicle;
an integration area setting unit that sets an integration area of integration into a map based on a result of calculating the distance and an area of detection by the specific vehicle; and
a map integration unit that integrates an information on the surrounding object that is acquired from the on-board device in the integration area into a map.
These limitations, as drafted, are a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106.04(d), the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106.04(d), 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 elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A map generation device comprising:
an information acquisition unit that acquires positional information on a specific vehicle and positional information on a surrounding vehicle that is positioned around the specific vehicle from on-board devices that are arranged respectively on the specific vehicle and the surrounding vehicle, respectively;
a distance calculator that calculates a distance between the specific vehicle and the surrounding vehicle based on the positional information on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the surrounding vehicle;
an integration area setting unit that sets an integration area of integration into a map based on a result of calculating the distance and an area of detection by the specific vehicle; and
a map integration unit that integrates an information on the surrounding object that is acquired from the on-board device in the integration area into a map.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the element of “A map generation device comprising” is merely describing generic computing components which allow the abstract idea to be applied on a computer or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “that are arranged respectively on the specific vehicle and the surrounding vehicle, respectively,” “based on the positional information on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the surrounding vehicle” and “based on a result of calculating the distance and an area of detection by the specific vehicle; and” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solutionary).
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the MPEP 2106.05, 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, regardless of whether they are looked at individually or in combination.
As discussed above, the additional elements of “A map generation device comprising” each amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the additional elements of “that are arranged respectively on the specific vehicle and the surrounding vehicle, respectively,” “based on the positional information on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the surrounding vehicle” and “based on a result of calculating the distance and an area of detection by the specific vehicle; and” each amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (see below). And a conclusion that additional elements are 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. These particular additional limitations are each undeniably well-understood, routine, and conventional activities already known in the art. 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 over a network, and/or merely the outputting of data in a similar manner, are well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a generic manner.
Dependent claims 2 – 6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or also contain well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 and 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibayama (US Pub No: 2022/0099457 A1, hereinafter Shibayama) in view of Tanisaka (US Pub No: 2023/0023551 A1, hereinafter Tanisaka).
Regarding Claim 1:
Shibayama discloses:
A map generation device comprising: an information acquisition unit that acquires positional information on a specific vehicle and positional information on a surrounding vehicle that is positioned around the specific vehicle from on-board devices that are arranged respectively on the specific vehicle and the surrounding vehicle, respectively. Paragraph [0095] describes a grid map being created based on the information obtained from the sensors of the own vehicle and grid map received from the neighboring vehicle. Paragraph [0083] describes a V2V communication system.
a distance calculator that calculates a distance between the specific vehicle and the surrounding vehicle based on the positional information on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the surrounding vehicle. Paragraph [0054] describes a distance between the vehicle and an object. The object can include another vehicle.
and a map integration unit that integrates an information on the surrounding object that is acquired from the on-board device in the integration area into a map. Paragraph [0095] describes a grid map being created based on the information obtained from the sensors of the own vehicle and grid map received from the neighboring vehicle. Paragraph [0083] describes a V2V communication system.
Shibayama does not disclose an integration area on a map based on calculating the distance and an area of detection by the specific vehicle.
Tanisaka, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
an integration area setting unit that sets an integration area of integration into a map based on a result of calculating the distance and an area of detection by the specific vehicle. Paragraph [0103] and figure 6 describes an obstacle detection area R, a first deceleration area R1 and a second deceleration area R2. Paragraph [0104] describes that a vehicle body 3 is lose to another object within a certain distance based on what area the obstacle is located in.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shibayama to incorporate the teachings of Tanisaka to show an integration area on a map based on calculating the distance and an area of detection by the specific vehicle. One would have been motivated to do so that an avoidance route can be planned to avoid an obstacle or another vehicle ([0129] of Tanisaka).
Claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 2:
Tanisaka teaches:
The map generation device according to claim 1, wherein the integration area setting unit sets, for the integration area, a circular area about the specific vehicle having a radius equal to or smaller than a distance to the surrounding vehicle that is the closest to the specific vehicle. Paragraph [0103] and figure 6 describes an obstacle detection area R, a first deceleration area R1 and a second deceleration area R2. Paragraph [0104] describes that a vehicle body 3 is lose to another object within a certain distance based on what area the obstacle is located in.
Regarding Claim 6:
Shibayama discloses:
The map generation device according to claim 1, wherein the integration area setting unit sets an integration area for mapping a dynamic object data based on the result of calculation by the distance calculator and the area of detection by the specific vehicle, and the integration area setting unit maps the surrounding object acquired from the in-vehicle device in the integration area as the dynamic object data to the static map data. Paragraph [0054] describes dynamic and static objects such “a vehicle, a person, an obstacle, a structure, a road, a traffic signal, a traffic sign, and a road sign.”
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibayama in view of Tanisaka and further in view of Zhao et. al. (US Pub No: 2019/0188495 A1, hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding Claim 3:
Shibayama and Tanisaka teach the above inventions in claim 1. Shibayama and Tanisaka do not teach an aera extending about a vehicle based on a forward, sideward and backward view.
Zhao, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The map generation device according to claim 1, wherein the integration area setting unit sets, for the integration area, an area about the specific vehicle in which a forward area in a travel direction of the specific vehicle extends differently from sideward and backward areas. Paragraph [0048] describes a front, rear, left and right camera, each having a different FOV and therefore a different view than each other.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shibayama to incorporate the teachings of Zhao to show an aera extending about a vehicle based on a forward, sideward and backward view. One would have been motivated to do so because different regions need different cameras/FOVs. For example, the length of a car is often longer than the width and therefore a side camera needs a much larger FOV than a front camera. Additionally, a user can generally easily see in front of a vehicle but not out of the rear. Therefore, a rearview camera may need to cover more blind spots than a front view camera.
Claim(s) 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibayama in view of Tanisaka and further in view of Hwang et al. (US Pub No: 2023/0017247 A1, hereinafter Hwang) and Takuya (CN 116868251 A, hereinafter Takuya).
Regarding Claim 4:
Shibayama and Tanisaka teach the above inventions in claim 1. Shibayama and Tanisaka do not teach determining reliability of each device based on the degree of agreement between position information on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the specific vehicle mounted on the surrounding vehicle and setting the integration area to wide when the reliability is high and setting the integration area to narrow when the reliability is low.
Hwang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The map generation device according to claim 1, further comprising: a reliability determination unit that determines reliability of each of the on-board devices based on a degree of agreement between the positional information on the specific vehicle that is detected by the on-board device that is mounted on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the specific vehicle that is detected by the on-board device that is mounted on the surrounding vehicle. Paragraph [0181] and [0182] describes a GPS reliability determined based on a first V2X vehicle determining a position of an object and a second V2X vehicle determine a position of the same object. The position information is determined and then corrected based on the information.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shibayama to incorporate the teachings of Hwang to show determining reliability of each device based on the degree of agreement between position information on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the specific vehicle mounted on the surrounding vehicle. One would have been motivated to do so because vehicle communications are sensitive to reliability and latency of sensors ([0058] of Hwang).
Takuya, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the integration area setting unit sets the integration area wide for the on-board device whose reliability is high and sets the integration area narrow for the on-board device whose reliability is low. Paragraph [0119] describes changing the range of the area around the vehicle to narrow at low reliability and changing the range of the area around the vehicle to wide at high reliability.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Shibayama to incorporate the teachings of Takuya to show setting the integration area to wide when the reliability is high and setting the integration area to narrow when the reliability is low. One would have been motivated to do so that the reproduction of the road remains accurate without false detections (Abstract of Takuya).
Regarding Claim 5:
Hwang and Takoya teach:
The map generation device according to claim 4, wherein the reliability determination unit that the reliability determination unit sets the reliability higher when the degree of agreement between the positional information on the specific vehicle that is detected by the on-board device mounted on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the specific vehicle that is detected by the on-board device mounted on the surrounding vehicle is higher, and sets the reliability lower when the degree of agreement between the positional information on the specific vehicle that is detected by the on-board device mounted on the specific vehicle and the positional information on the specific vehicle that is detected by the on-board device mounted on the surrounding vehicle is lower. Paragraph [0181] and [0182] of Hwang describes a GPS reliability determined based on a first V2X vehicle determining a position of an object and a second V2X vehicle determine a position of the same object. The position information is determined and then corrected based on the information. Paragraph [0119] of Takoya describes changing the range of the area around the vehicle to narrow at low reliability and changing the range of the area around the vehicle to wide at high reliability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takagi (US Pub No: 2025/0381985 A1): A travel assistance device configured to detect a surrounding environment of a first vehicle by an onboard sensor of the first vehicle and assist the autonomously traveling first vehicle in traveling includes at least one computer configured to perform processing including: setting allowable travel speed, that is a speed at which the first vehicle can be caused to travel under autonomous driving control, to a speed lower than a legal speed or a set speed, that is a speed set by a user, according to a recognition state of the onboard sensor or a vehicle state of the first vehicle; and generating an alternative route including a road having a speed limit less than or equal to the allowable travel speed as a target travel route of the first vehicle, based on the current position of the first vehicle, the destination of the first vehicle, and the allowable travel speed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3658