CTNF 19/017,987 CTNF 96349 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This Office Action is in response to the aforementioned Application filed January 13, 2025. Claims 1-7 are presently pending and presented for examination. Priority Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on Japanese Patent Application No. JP2024-004516, filed January 16, 2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 13, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception without significantly more. Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-7 are directed to a system and method for determining how a vehicle should proceed through a narrow stretch of road when an oncoming vehicle is present. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations displayed in bold below: A vehicle control device comprising: a processor configured to determine whether or not a forward moving vehicle traveling ahead of a host vehicle and an oncoming vehicle traveling toward the host vehicle are present in a predetermined range in a traveling direction of the host vehicle, determine whether or not a narrow road section exists between the forward moving vehicle and the oncoming vehicle where it is difficult for the host vehicle and the oncoming vehicle to travel past each other, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle and the oncoming vehicle are present, determine whether or not the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, based on a response of the forward moving vehicle to the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the narrow road section exists, and decide that the host vehicle should enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, a user driving a car behind another car is able to witness the situation before them. They may see that a narrow stretch of road is approaching along with any oncoming traffic that may also be approaching (e.g. a narrow residential street where cars driving in opposite directions are trying to pass each other). The user may then observe the behaviors of the vehicle in front of them along with making a mental determination of how long it would take all of the cars in the scenario to reach the narrow stretch of road. Upon determination that the forward vehicle has passed through the narrow section, the user may then mentally determine if there is enough time for them to pass through as well and maneuvers through the narrow section accordingly. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. A vehicle control device comprising: a processor configured to determine whether or not a forward moving vehicle traveling ahead of a host vehicle and an oncoming vehicle traveling toward the host vehicle are present in a predetermined range in a traveling direction of the host vehicle, determine whether or not a narrow road section exists between the forward moving vehicle and the oncoming vehicle where it is difficult for the host vehicle and the oncoming vehicle to travel past each other, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle and the oncoming vehicle are present, determine whether or not the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, based on a response of the forward moving vehicle to the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the narrow road section exists, and decide that the host vehicle should enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle. The functions of the processor are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The characterization of the electronic controller as a vehicle control device amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As discussed above, the additional elements of processor 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 characterization of the controller as a vehicle control device amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The various metrics/variables/limitations of claims 2-6 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without recitation of any further additional elements. Therefore, tor the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations of claims 7 and 8 are comparable to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tauchi (US 20060208923), in view of Arndt Dr habil et al. (US 20220415171; hereinafter Christoph) . Regarding Claim 1, Tauchi teaches A vehicle control device (Tauchi: Paragraph [0031] ; Remote Control Terminal 130a) comprising: a processor configured to determine whether or not a forward moving vehicle traveling ahead of a host vehicle and an oncoming vehicle traveling toward the host vehicle are present in a predetermined range in a traveling direction of the host vehicle, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0057] ) ... determine whether or not a narrow road section exists between the forward moving vehicle and the oncoming vehicle where it is difficult for the host vehicle and the oncoming vehicle to travel past each other, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0070] ) when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle and the oncoming vehicle are present, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0011], [0060] ) determine whether or not the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, based on a response of the forward moving vehicle to the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the narrow road section exists, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A ; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.) ... Tauchi does not explicitly teach a system for determining if the host vehicle will arrive at a narrow section of road or be able to pass through the narrow section before an oncoming vehicle arrives at the narrow section of road. However in the same field of endeavor, Christoph teaches ... decide that the host vehicle should enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle. (Christoph: Paragraph [0041]-[0042] ) It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the narrow road navigation system of Tauchi with the narrow road crossing optimization of Christoph for the benefit of designing a safer passage of a plurality of vehicles along narrow streets . (Christoph: Paragraph [0006] ) Regarding Claim 2, Tauchi, in view of Christoph, teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle will reach the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle and the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes through the narrow road section, (Christoph: Paragraph [0041]-[0042] ) and decide that the host vehicle should enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle will reach the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle and the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes through the narrow road section. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A ; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.) The motivation to combine Tauchi and Christoph is the same as stated for Claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 3, Tauchi, in view of Christoph, teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle will reach the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle and the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes beside the oncoming vehicle after having passed through the narrow road section, (Christoph: Paragraph [0020]-[0021], [0038]-[0041] ) and decide that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle will pass through the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle and the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes beside the oncoming vehicle after having passed through the narrow road section. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A ; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.) The motivation to combine Tauchi and Christoph is the same as stated for Claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 4, Tauchi, in view of Christoph, teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle will reach the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes through the narrow road section, and a distance between the forward moving vehicle and the host vehicle is shorter than a predetermined reference distance, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0008], [0075] ) and decide that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle will pass through the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the forward moving vehicle passes through the narrow road section, and the distance between the forward moving vehicle and the host vehicle is shorter than the predetermined reference distance. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A ; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.) Regarding Claim 5, Tauchi, in view of Christoph, teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle has decelerated beyond a predetermined reference speed amount after it has been decided that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A ; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.) determine that the host vehicle cannot enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the forward moving vehicle has decelerated beyond the predetermined reference speed amount, (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A ; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.) and decide to cancel the decision allowing the host vehicle to enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle so that the host vehicle does not enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle, when it has been determined that the host vehicle cannot enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A ; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.) Regarding Claim 6, Tauchi, in view of Christoph, teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the forward moving vehicle has decelerated beyond the predetermined reference speed amount while the forward moving vehicle is traveling in the narrow road section after it has been decided that the host vehicle can enter into the narrow road section before the oncoming vehicle. (Tauchi: Paragraph [0082], [0092], FIG. 3(A-C) and 4A ; Vehicle A waits for all vehicle B to G pass the narrow strip of road. The vehicles proceed one after the other and if a forward vehicle is stopped, then the vehicle behind it cannot continue.) Regarding Claim 7, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1. Regarding Claim 8, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm. 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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663 /ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 5 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 7 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 8 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 9 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 10 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 11 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/017,987 Page 12 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights