DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-14 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-2, 5-8, and 13-14 is/are rejected, claim 3-4 and 9-12 is/are objected to. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-14 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “when the vehicle is traveling on a curved road, the processor sets a distance from the vehicle to a far end part on a side in the proceeding direction of the vehicle of a judgment range in which the judgment is performed to be shorter than the distance when the vehicle is not traveling on a curved road” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
[2] 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-12 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 13-14 do not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). See 35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA ) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claim 1, 5-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) as being anticipated by Kurumisawa (US 20130158830).
Regarding claim 1, Kurumisawa discloses a judgment device comprising: a storage medium storing computer readable commands; and a processor connected to the storage medium (see paragraph 34, The storage section 15 stores in advance therein computer programs used for calculation processing performed by the above-described curved road probability calculating section 11), wherein the processor executes the computer readable commands
to recognize a road division line present in a proceeding direction of a vehicle (see paragraph 80, when judged that all of the above-described conditions (Y1) to (Y4) are met, the follow probability calculating section 12 performs calculation processing for correcting an own lane probability of the leading vehicle, in order to correct own lane, the lane line needs to be recognized), and
to judge whether or not the recognized road division line is consistent with a map road division line based on map information stored in a storage unit (see paragraph 58, performs calculation processing for determining an offset amount between an expected cruising line of the own vehicle and the cruising track of the leading vehicle, also the map is stored in advance see paragraph 61, the probability map is stored in advance in the storage section 15, FIG. 10A to FIG. 10C, the probability map is a map in which correspondence between the offset amount and the follow probability is set, where the follow probability refers to the probability of the own vehicle following the leading vehicle selected by the followed object candidate calculating section), and
when the vehicle is traveling on a curved road, the processor sets a distance from the vehicle to a far end part on a side in the proceeding direction of the vehicle of a judgment range (see figure 12A illustration below) in which the judgment is performed to be shorter than the distance when the vehicle is not traveling on a curved road (see figure 12B illustrations below, where distance1 is less than distance2, where distance1 is traveling on a non-curved road):
PNG
media_image1.png
572
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 5, Kurumisawa discloses
the judgment device according to claim 1, wherein the processor identifies a contact point where a line extending from a predetermined position in the vehicle comes into contact with a road division line of the recognized road division lines on an inward side of the curved road (see figure 9, the own vehicle traveling in the current path will come into contact with C1, C2 and C3, where said points are the road division line), and
the processor sets the distance to the far end part of the judgment range in accordance with a position of the contact point (see figure 9, where C1 is the far end judgement range based on the position of C1 which is a contact point):
PNG
media_image2.png
473
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 6, Kurumisawa discloses the judgment device according to claim 5, wherein the processor sets, as the distance to the far end part, a distance to a position at a predetermined distance far away from the position of the contact point of the judgment range (see figure 9, the positions of C1-C3 are at predetermined distance from one another and is also based on the distance between the two vehicles, where the leading vehicle is at the “far end part” of the curved road).
Regarding claim 7, Kurumisawa discloses the judgment device according to claim 1 wherein the processor sets the distance to the far end part of the judgment range in accordance with a curving degree of the curved road (see equation 1 and figure 8, where dx is a 2nd degree polynomial, which represent the curve degree of the curve road, the point further to the left side in figure 8 is read as the far end part).
Regarding claim 8, Kurumisawa discloses the judgment device according to claim 7 wherein the processor shortens the distance to the far end part as the curving degree of the curved road increases (see figure 8, the alpha in equation 1 controls the curvature of the plot dx, if alpha increase the curvature of the plot in figure 8, see below, where the curve with the higher curvature include points that are closer to the vehicle in the horizontal direction):
:
PNG
media_image3.png
393
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 13-14, see the rationale and rejection for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurumisawa (US 20130158830) in view of TANAKA (US 20170269591).
Regarding claim 2, Kurumisawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the judgment device according to the judgment device according to wherein the processor sets the distance to the far end part of the judgment range in accordance with a gradient of the curved road. TANAKA discloses the judgment device according to the judgment device according to wherein the processor sets the distance to the far end part of the judgment range in accordance with a gradient of the curved road (see paragraph 47, route-demanded vehicle speeds are determined from the road specification and the like, such as gradients, curvatures and road widths, of the route).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the judgment device according to the judgment device according to wherein the processor sets the distance to the far end part of the judgment range in accordance with a gradient of the curved road in order to compensate for steeper slopes to alter the line-of-sight geometry and vehicle stopping distances, which requires the processor to dynamically scale the detection zone.
[4] Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3-4 and 9-12 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): “the judgment device according to claim 2 wherein the processor sets, as the distance to the far end part, a distance to a position where a difference in a vehicle width direction between the map road division line and a gradient map road division line obtained by correcting the map road division line in accordance with the gradient becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value” in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Kurumisawa discloses the judgment device according to claim 2 wherein the processor sets, as the distance to the far end part, a distance to a position where a difference between
PNG
media_image4.png
174
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
TANAKA discloses a gradient
Regarding claim 4, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): “the judgment device according to claim 2 wherein the processor sets, as the distance to the far end part, a distance to a position at a predetermined distance near from a position where a difference in a vehicle width direction between the map road division line and a gradient map road division line obtained by correcting the map road division line in accordance with the gradient becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value” in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Kurumisawa discloses the judgment device according to claim 2 wherein the processor sets, as the distance to the far end part, a distance to a position at a predetermined distance near from a position where a difference
PNG
media_image4.png
174
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
TANAKA discloses a gradient is
With regards to claim 9, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): “the judgment device according to claim 1, wherein the processor identifies a contact point where a line extending from a predetermined position in the vehicle comes into contact with a road division line of the recognized road division lines on an inward side of the curved road, the processor sets a first candidate for the far end part in accordance with a gradient of the curved road, sets a second candidate for the far end part in accordance with a position of the contact point, and sets a third candidate for the far end part in accordance with a curving degree of the curved road, and the processor sets, as the far end part, a candidate of at least two of the first candidate, the second candidate, and the third candidate present on a side near the vehicle” in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
Kurumisawa discloses the judgment device according to claim 1, wherein the processor identifies a contact point where a line extending from a predetermined position in the vehicle comes into contact with a road division line of the recognized road division lines position of the contact point (see figure 9, C1), and sets a third candidate for the far end part in accordance with a curving degree of the curved road (see figure 9, C2), and
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are objected as well because it is dependent on a claim with allowable subject matter.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. 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.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 8/16/26
Prosecution Insights