DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are original.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 5/19/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2023-215097 filed in Japan on 12/20/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 4/8/2026 and 4/16/2026are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendment to the title, filed 5/19/2026, is acceptable and the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 5/19/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the specification objection (presented on p. 8), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 8), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 8), the remarks are acknowledged, however no reasoned arguments regarding the interpretation under 112(f) have been provided.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 8-9), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 9-11), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The arguments (p. 9) state that the travel control operation is real-world control of a real vehicle. However, these arguments are not persuasive. While the recited travel control of the claim may be intended to control travel of a vehicle, the office submits that the travel control is not positively recited as part of the method, or a function of the apparatus or non-transitory computer readable medium. The claims only recite that simulation is “a part of a vehicle travel control operation by a control program for controlling travel of the vehicle.” In other words, the claim only provides context that the simulation is intended to be part of a larger control program that controls the vehicle, but the execution of the actual control program to control the vehicle does not appear to be required as part of the claims. Additionally, in specification ¶0036, the operations of Figure 4 (including maintaining speed or adjusting deceleration) are described as being performed in a server and as part of a mimic program as opposed to onboard a vehicle for a real situation. The arguments (p. 9-10) further state that the claims include limitations that cannot be performed mentally such as the simple simulation, detailed simulation, patterns representing surrounding situations, and corresponding of pattens. However, no reasoned arguments have been provided as to why a person cannot mentally or manually perform these functions. The office maintains that such limitations can be performed mentally, as human drivers commonly evaluate situations with varying levels of detail (e.g. either making quick decisions or more in-depth analysis based on additional observation (further detail) depending on the urgency of the situation), by thinking about movement patterns of their own vehicle and traffic. The arguments (p. 10) further state that the claims show integration of any abstract idea into a practical application by reducing processing time while ensuring accuracy. However, this is not a technological improvement of a computer itself, but merely a feature of the abstract idea wherein the most important or relevant data can be considered further. The office submits that this is an improvement of the abstract idea as opposed to an improvement or solution rooted in technology. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 102 and 103 (presented on p. 11), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of US2021/0373566A1 (Agarwal et al.) and US2022/0371583A1 (Kario et al.), as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2022/0348198A1 (Kamoshita et al.), US2023/0339459A1 (Chi-Johnston et al.), and US2024/0317313A1 (Iida et al.).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1, 8, and 15, “part of the surrounding situations” should instead read “part of the situations” or “part of the situations of the surrounding environment” for clarity.
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. Such claim limitation is:
(a) “a controller” that operates and extracts, in Claim 8,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “controller” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification ¶0021 states that the controller may be one or more processors, one or more dedicated circuits, or a combination thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 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 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1-20, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites a method of operating an information processing apparatus, the method comprising:
operating in a plurality of simulated situations by a simulation program that executes, according to a part of situations of a surrounding environment in which a vehicle travels, a part of a vehicle travel control operation by a control program for controlling travel of the vehicle according to the situations; and
extracting, from the plurality of simulated situations, a first simulated situation in which the vehicle and an object exhibit a predetermined state, for a simulation process by the control program,
wherein in the simulation process, the vehicle travel control operation by the control program is executed in the first simulated situation,
wherein the part of the vehicle travel control operation is acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle on a predetermined travel route,
the simulation program generates the plurality of simulated situations using simple simulation data,
the control program uses detailed simulation data corresponding to the simple simulation data in the first simulated situation,
the simple simulation data includes data for a first set of simulation patterns, and
the detailed simulation data includes data for a second set of simulation patterns, each simulation pattern of the first set of simulation patterns represents a part of the surrounding situations, and the first set of simulation patterns is in correspondence with the second set of simulation patterns.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing a method, the method comprising:
operating in a plurality of simulated situations according to a part of situations of a surrounding environment in which a vehicle travels (for example a driver mentally considering plural possible actions (swerving left or right or braking) in response to a situation in the front part of a vehicle), a part of a vehicle travel control operation (simulating/considering actions being part of an overall travel control/driving operation – it is noted that the claim does not positively recite a step of performing vehicle travel control, only that simulation is part of the travel control operation) for controlling travel of the vehicle according to the situations (the possible actions as part of overall driving control of the vehicle); and
extracting, from the plurality of simulated situations, a first simulated situation in which the vehicle and an object exhibit a predetermined state (the driver deciding on the action which will cause a predetermined margin of space between the vehicle and an obstacle ahead such as a stopped vehicle), for a simulation process (the action being intended for some further simulation. It is noted that the language “for a simulation…” is only intended use),
wherein in the simulation process, the vehicle travel control operation is executed in the first simulated situation (the intended simulation being further mental consideration of the chosen action, i.e. driver considering vehicle control operations),
wherein the part of the vehicle travel control operation is acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle on a predetermined travel route (the driving of the vehicle including acceleration and braking),
the simulation generates the plurality of simulated situations using simple simulation data (for example the driver considering the actions for only a limited amount of time before choosing the appropriate action),
using detailed simulation data corresponding to the simple simulation data in the first simulated situation (the driver considering the execution of the chosen action for a longer period of time, i.e. more detailed evaluation/simulation of the action),
the simple simulation data includes data for a first set of simulation patterns (the set of possible actions being patterns of vehicle movement), and
the detailed simulation data includes data for a second set of simulation patterns (the evaluation of the chosen action including different possible amounts of steering/braking), each simulation pattern of the first set of simulation patterns represents a part of the surrounding situations (the possible actions all being for the situation in front of the vehicle), and the first set of simulation patterns is in correspondence with the second set of simulation patterns (the second patterns corresponding to an action of the first set of possible actions).
Thus, the claim recite an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are a method of operating an information processing apparatus, the use of a simulation program that executes and the operation and simulation process “by a control program,” and the recitation of the simulation program and the control program.
These elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites plural steps performed by a processor at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are a method of operating an information processing apparatus, the use of a simulation program that executes and the operation and simulation process “by a control program,” and the recitation of the simulation program and the control program.
For the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more for the same reasons presented above as the ordered combination is merely a multi-step mental process applied by generic computer components.
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 recite the same abstract idea. The claims recite additional elements of a memory and controller in Claim 8, and non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program in Claim 15. These are recitations of generic computer components at a high level of generality and therefore the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 1. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 recite further details of the part of the situations. These are further details of the abstract idea as a person can consider, e.g. the speed of an object (a slow-moving vehicle ahead vs stopped vehicle) and road surface (driver knowing braking distance will be longer for slippery surface). The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite the simulation program determines a deceleration rate based on a time until the object intersects the predetermined travel route, which is a further detail of the abstract idea as a person can determine an amount of braking based on predicted time until a collision (intersection of object and vehicle path). The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite the predetermined state is that a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a first criterion. This is a further detail of the abstract idea as a person can predict a closest approach for two actions. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite performing the simulation process. This is a further detail of the abstract idea as a person can envision the particular driving action before performing it. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 7 and 14 recite wherein in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion is determined. This is a further detail of the abstract idea as a person can envision the particular driving action and determine whether a second closest approach (such as a 0 distance approach – a collision) will occur, before it happens. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0348198A1 (Kamoshita et al.) in view of Publication US2021/0373566A1 (Agarwal et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kamoshita et al. discloses a method of operating an information processing apparatus (see Figure 1, [0024-0025] performed by processor of trajectory generation device), the method comprising:
operating in a plurality of simulated situations (see [0046] in S30 and S40 evaluating plural trajectory candidates, i.e. imitative representation of vehicle action, simulations) by a simulation program that executes, according to a part of situations of a surrounding environment in which a vehicle travels (see Figure 4, [0046] according to “recognized information” from S10 which [0020] includes LIDAR and camera image data), a part of a vehicle travel control operation by a control program for controlling travel of the vehicle according to the situations (see Figure 4, the evaluation of S40 being part of an overall control operation, which [0047] generates fixed future trajectory which [0054] is driven by ECU 40 [0021] autonomous driving or assistance); and
extracting, from the plurality of simulated situations, a first simulated situation in which the vehicle and an object exhibit a predetermined state (see [0046-0047] S40 and S50, extract/select acceptable trajectory candidate as the “provisional future trajectory”, and see [0039] finding trajectory in which closest distance between the vehicle A and the other object is at or above a preset margin (a predetermined state)), for a simulation process by the control program (see Figure 4, the provisional future trajectory further being optimized/fixed in S60, [0041], e.g. optimizing to minimize jerk (mathematically simulating jerk) or performing constrained optimization to constrain within area (spatial simulation), as part of the overall control program),
wherein in the simulation process (see [0047] S60 correcting the provisional future trajectory), the vehicle travel control operation by the control program is executed in the first simulated situation (see [0040-0041] correcting includes evaluating margin between the vehicle A and the object based on trajectory, i.e. simulation of future vehicle control along trajectory),
the simple simulation data includes data for a first set of simulation patterns (see [0046] candidate trajectories [0036] e.g. for driving in different lanes, various patterns of movement), and
the detailed simulation data includes data for a second set of simulation patterns (see [0047] provisional future trajectory corrected [0041] by optimizing by minimizing jerk i.e. considering plural patterns of movement/jerk), each simulation pattern of the first set of simulation patterns represents a part of the surrounding situations (see [0046] candidate trajectories (first set of patterns) based on recognized information [0020] of environment i.e. represents vehicle as being a part of the surrounding situation), and the first set of simulation patterns is in correspondence with the second set of simulation patterns (see [0046-0047] provisional future trajectory is a selected trajectory candidate i.e. corresponding relationship wherein each of second set of variations of provisional future trajectory correspond to one of the set of possible candidate trajectories).
Kamoshita et al. further discloses acceleration and deceleration as controlled parameters (see [0021]) but does not explicitly recite:
wherein the part of the vehicle travel control operation is acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle on a predetermined travel route,
Examiner’s note: that is, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite acceleration and deceleration as the simulated part of the travel control.
and does not explicitly recite:
the simulation program generates the plurality of simulated situations using simple simulation data, and
the control program uses detailed simulation data corresponding to the simple simulation data in the first simulated situation.
However, Agarwal et al. teaches a technique in simulating vehicle travel (see [0124] candidate trajectories),
wherein the part of the vehicle travel control operation is acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle (see [0126] acceleration/deceleration evaluated as part of cost) on a predetermined travel route (see [0126] on candidate trajectory),
the simulation program generates the plurality of simulated situations using simple simulation data, and
the control program uses detailed simulation data corresponding to the simple simulation data in the first simulated situation (see [0079] the operation 642 can include simulating a selected trajectory with a more detailed model to confirm the costs determined in the operations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulations of Kamoshita et al. to include simulation of vehicle acceleration and deceleration and to use a tiered detail model as taught by Agarwal et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving reliability and accuracy by confirming trajectory performance at a higher level of detail and improving lateral modeling of desired trajectories (see Agarwal et al., [0014-0016, 0079]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 1,
wherein the part of the situations includes a movement speed of the object, an acceleration and deceleration of the object, a movement route of the object, a blind spot location of the vehicle, a dimension of the vehicle, and/or a shape of the vehicle.
However, Agarwal et al. teaches the technique as above,
wherein the part of the situations includes a movement speed of the object (see [0117] planning component using data from perception component [0111] including velocity of a sensed entity), an acceleration and deceleration of the object, a movement route of the object, a blind spot location of the vehicle, a dimension of the vehicle, and/or a shape of the vehicle.
The motivation to combine Kamoshita et al. and Agarwal et al. was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Kamoshita et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined state is that a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a first criterion (see [0039] closest distance between the vehicle A and the other object is at or above a preset margin).
Regarding Claim 6, Kamoshita et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising the simulation process (see Figure 4, including S60).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, respectively. Claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 pertain to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 respectively. Claims 15, 16, 19, and 20 pertain to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6, respectively. Claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0348198A1 (Kamoshita et al.) in view of Publication US2021/0373566A1 (Agarwal et al.), further in view of Publication US2023/0339459A1 (Chi-Johnston et al.).
Regarding Claim 3, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 2, wherein the part of the situations further includes visibility and/or a road surface condition.
However, Chi-Johnston et al. teaches the situation data as above,
wherein the part of the situations further includes visibility and/or a road surface condition (see [0071] road condition, [0077] e.g. ice patches, flooding, slipperiness).
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulation(s) of Kamoshita et al. to further consider situation data as taught by Chi-Johnston et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving driving safety (see Chi-Johnston et al., [0019]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 17 all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 3. Claim 10 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 3. Claim 17 pertains to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claim 3. Claims 10 and 17 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 3, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0348198A1 (Kamoshita et al.) in view of Publication US2021/0373566A1 (Agarwal et al.), further in view of Publication US2022/0371583A1 (Kario et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 1, wherein the simulation program determines a deceleration rate based on a time until the object intersects the predetermined travel route.
However, Kario et al. teaches a technique to simulate vehicle motion (see e.g. Figure 27, [0341-0342] evaluating possible collision),
wherein the simulation program determines a deceleration rate based on a time until the object intersects the predetermined travel route (see Figures 27, 29, [0359] based on the TTC, trajectory and host dynamics, system 100 may calculate an independent deceleration that would avoid the collision).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the simulation program of Kamoshita et al. to consider intersection of object and vehicle route as taught by Kario et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving safety by avoiding collision (see Kario et al., [0359]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 18 all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 4. Claim 11 pertains to an apparatus corresponding to the method of Claim 4. Claim 18 pertains to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method of Claim 4. Claims 11 and 18 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 4, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication US2022/0348198A1 (Kamoshita et al.) in view of Publication US2021/0373566A1 (Agarwal et al.), further in view of Published Application US2024/0317313A1 (Iida et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite the method according to claim 6, wherein in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion is determined.
However, Iida et al. teaches a technique to correct a trajectory,
wherein in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion is determined (see Figure 9, [0118], S108, The correction module 107 further corrects the corrected path 81 such that the distance to the obstacle detected anew is equal to or greater than the threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fixing/optimization of the trajectory of Kamoshita et al. to include the criteria as taught by Iida et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the usefulness of the control system to extend to parking operations and improve user convenience (see Iida et al., [0006]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kamoshita et al. does not explicitly recite the information processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to determine, in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion.
However, Iida et al. teaches a technique to correct a trajectory,
wherein the controller is configured to determine, in the simulation process, whether a closest approach distance between the vehicle and the object satisfies a second criterion (see Figure 9, [0118], S108, The correction module 107 further corrects the corrected path 81 such that the distance to the obstacle detected anew is equal to or greater than the threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fixing/optimization of the trajectory of Kamoshita et al. to include the criteria as taught by Iida et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the usefulness of the control system to extend to parking operations and improve user convenience (see Iida et al., [0006]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights