CTNF 19/043,577 CTNF 89191 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 USC 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. Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, without significantly more. The rejected claim(s) is/are shown below with formatting and annotations that will be referred to throughout the analysis. Abstract ideas are in bold, followed by the abstract idea grouping in brackets. Additional elements are underlined, followed by the category of additional elements for which the additional element fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the category being listed in brackets. Claim 1 A determining device comprising: a processor ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] configured to detect a first roll angle by which a vehicle has rotated around a front-rear axis of the vehicle as a center, based on an image representing surrounding environment of the vehicle [mental process], set a rollover determination scale based on the first roll angle [mathematical concept], and determine whether or not the vehicle has rolled over, using the rollover determination scale, based on a roll angular velocity representing a rotational speed around the front-rear axis of the vehicle and a second roll angle calculated by integrating the roll angular velocity [mental process]. Claim 2 The determining device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to set the rollover determination scale based on the first roll angle detected while the vehicle is traveling [mathematical concept]. Claim 3 The determining device according to claim 1, wherein the rollover determination scale is represented as a rollover region in a coordinate plane in which a first axis represents a roll angle and a second axis represents a roll angular velocity, the roll angle and the roll angular velocity being equal to or greater than predetermined reference values [mathematical concept], and the processor is further configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to set the rollover determination scale by moving the rollover region in the direction of the first axis from a reference position by an amount of the detected first roll angle [mathematical concept]. Claim 4 The determining device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to determine whether or not the detected first roll angle exceeds a predetermined reference roll angle [mental process], and halt determination of whether or not the vehicle has rolled over when it has been determined that the first roll angle exceeds the reference roll angle [mental process]. Claim 5 The determining device according to claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer] to use a smaller reference roll angle when the vehicle is being manually driven than when the vehicle is being self-driven [mathematical concept]. Claims 6 and 7 Claim(s) 6 and 7 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected under the same grounds. Note that the computer-readable, non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program for determination, which causes a processor to execute a process in claim 6 is considered to be an additional element categorized as ["apply it" (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer]. Step 1 The claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The analysis proceeds to step 2A, prong I. Step 2A, Prong I The claims are analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. See MPEP 2106(A)(11)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c). Examiner asserts that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute(s) a mathematical concept, a certain method of organizing human activity, and/or a mental process because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation(s) can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to step 2A, prong II. Step 2A, Prong II The claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims, as a whole, integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(11)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 element(s) 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.” See MPEP 2106.05f-h. The additional element(s) of the claim at issue do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional element(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the additional element(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the element(s) individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional element(s), when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05. The analysis proceeds to step 2B. Step 2B Step 2B requires that any additional element(s) determined to be insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the additional element(s) are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, which would result in the claim amounting to an inventive concept (in other words, "significantly more" than the abstract idea). Since the claims being considered do not recite any additional elements deemed as insignificant extra-solution activity, the claims are determined to not recite any additional elements deemed as insignificant extra-solution activity that are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, which result in the claim amounting to an inventive concept. Thus, the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Conclusion Based on the analysis above, Examiner determines that claims 1-7 do not qualify as eligible subject matter, and the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101. Examiner notes that the specification recite(s) additional elements that do result in the claims integrating the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception and amounting to an inventive concept (aka "significantly more"), specifically 0028 and 0041 describing subject matter regarding deploying an airbag when it has been determined that the vehicle has rolled over. Amending the independent claim(s) to include such subject matter would be sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US20050257981 (“Iyoda”) in view of US20120281881 (“Walter”) and US20080114509 (“Inoue”) . Claim 1 Iyoda discloses determining device (abstract) comprising: a processor (0015 controller ) configured to detect a first roll angle by which a vehicle has rotated around a front-rear axis of the vehicle as a center (0045 The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination of rollover based on the first roll rate RR1 and the roll angle RA1 obtained by integrating the first roll rate RR1 with respect to time. The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination using a map indicating a relationship between roll rate and roll angle as shown in FIG. 4A where a region R1 is set in advance. , 0043), and determine whether or not the vehicle has rolled over, using a rollover determination scale, based on a roll angular velocity representing a rotational speed around the front-rear axis of the vehicle and a second roll angle calculated by integrating the roll angular velocity (0045 The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination of rollover based on the first roll rate RR1 and the roll angle RA1 obtained by integrating the first roll rate RR1 with respect to time. The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination using a map indicating a relationship between roll rate and roll angle as shown in FIG. 4A where a region R1 is set in advance. When a point defined by the first roll rate RR1 periodically detected by the first roll rate sensor 22 and the roll angle RA1 obtained by integrating the first roll rate RR1 with respect to time is within the region R1, it is determined that the vehicle 10 has been rolled over. ). Iyoda fails to disclose wherein the first roll angle is based on an image representing surrounding environment of the vehicle. However, Iyoda does disclose determining roll angle (0045). Furthermore, Walter teaches a system of determining roll angle of a vehicle (abstract), including: wherein the first roll angle is based on an image representing surrounding environment of the vehicle (abstract: estimating the roll angle in a travelling vehicle (7), comprising the following steps. In step a), a camera (8) is used to record a sequence of images of the vehicle's surroundings, in particular of the road (1) ahead. In step b), at least one signature (S1-S6) on the road surface is extracted from the camera images, i.e. said signature is determined and tracked. The changed position of the at least one signature (S1-S6) in one or more subsequent camera image(s) is used in step c) to determine in which direction the camera (8) is turned with regard to the roll angle. The value of the roll angle is estimated in step d). For this purpose, the roll angle is either directly estimated in step d1), taking into account the vehicle speed (v) and an imaging model of the camera (8), or the roll angle is iteratively increased or decreased by a defined correction angle in step d2) until the roll angle sufficiently compensates for the turning of the camera (8). On this basis, the estimated roll angle is obtained as an overall correction value. ). Iyoda and Walter both disclose systems of determining roll angle of a vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Iyoda to include the teaching of Walter with a reasonable expectation of success by providing the advantage that the roll angle in the travelling vehicle can be estimated in an up-to-the-moment and precise manner (Walter 0012). Additionally, Iyoda fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to set a rollover determination scale based on the first roll angle. However, Iyoda does disclose using a rollover determination scale based roll angle (0045 The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination of rollover based on the first roll rate RR1 and the roll angle RA1 obtained by integrating the first roll rate RR1 with respect to time. The RR1- RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination using a map indicating a relationship between roll rate and roll angle as shown in FIG. 4A where a region R1 is set in advance. ). Furthermore, Inoue teaches a system of determining rollover of a vehicle based on roll angle and velocity (0007), including: wherein the processor is configured to set a rollover determination scale based on the first roll angle (0008 a threshold change functional unit for changing the determination threshold on a basis of a roll angular velocity, a tilt angle of the vehicle which is acquired by integrating the roll angular velocity, and either or both of a lateral direction acceleration and a steering wheel angle; , 0032 FIG. 3 shows a state in which this threshold change functional unit 5 changes the determination threshold. In this FIG. 3, the vertical axis shows the roll angular velocity .omega. (deg/s) and the horizontal axis shows the roll angle .theta. (deg), and thresholds which are respectively changed from the threshold .omega.th which is a reference threshold by a threshold .omega.a, a threshold .omega.b, and a threshold .omega. c are shown. , 0033). Iyoda and Inoue both disclose systems of determining rollover of a vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Iyoda to include the teaching of Inoue with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more appropriately deploy rollover mitigation strategies based on rollover thresholds that are more accurate based on the vehicle driven. Claim 2 Iyoda fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to set the rollover determination scale based on the first roll angle. However, Iyoda does disclose using a rollover determination scale based roll angle (0045 The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination of rollover based on the first roll rate RR1 and the roll angle RA1 obtained by integrating the first roll rate RR1 with respect to time. The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination using a map indicating a relationship between roll rate and roll angle as shown in FIG. 4A where a region R1 is set in advance. ). Furthermore, Inoue teaches a system of determining rollover of a vehicle based on roll angle and velocity (0007), including: wherein the processor is further configured to set the rollover determination scale based on the first roll angle (0008 a threshold change functional unit for changing the determination threshold on a basis of a roll angular velocity, a tilt angle of the vehicle which is acquired by integrating the roll angular velocity, and either or both of a lateral direction acceleration and a steering wheel angle; , 0032 FIG. 3 shows a state in which this threshold change functional unit 5 changes the determination threshold. In this FIG. 3, the vertical axis shows the roll angular velocity .omega. (deg/s) and the horizontal axis shows the roll angle .theta. (deg), and thresholds which are respectively changed from the threshold .omega.th which is a reference threshold by a threshold .omega.a, a threshold .omega.b, and a threshold .omega. c are shown. , 0033). See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine. Iyoda fails to explicitly disclose wherein the roll angle is detected while the vehicle is traveling. However, Iyoda does suggest wherein the roll angle is detected while the vehicle is traveling (0045 The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination of rollover based on the first roll rate RR1 and the roll angle RA1 obtained by integrating the first roll rate RR1 with respect to time. The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination using a map indicating a relationship between roll rate and roll angle as shown in FIG. 4A where a region R1 is set in advance. , 0043). Furthermore, Walter explicitly discloses: wherein the roll angle is detected while the vehicle is traveling (abstract: estimating the roll angle in a travelling vehicle (7), comprising the following steps. In step a), a camera (8) is used to record a sequence of images of the vehicle's surroundings, in particular of the road (1) ahead. In step b), at least one signature (S1-S6) on the road surface is extracted from the camera images, i.e. said signature is determined and tracked. The changed position of the at least one signature (S1-S6) in one or more subsequent camera image(s) is used in step c) to determine in which direction the camera (8) is turned with regard to the roll angle. The value of the roll angle is estimated in step d). For this purpose, the roll angle is either directly estimated in step d1), taking into account the vehicle speed (v) and an imaging model of the camera (8), or the roll angle is iteratively increased or decreased by a defined correction angle in step d2) until the roll angle sufficiently compensates for the turning of the camera (8). On this basis, the estimated roll angle is obtained as an overall correction value. ) See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine. Claim 3 Iyoda discloses: wherein the rollover determination scale is represented as a rollover region in a coordinate plane in which a first axis represents a roll angle and a second axis represents a roll angular velocity, the roll angle and the roll angular velocity being equal to or greater than predetermined reference values (Fig. 4a, 0045 The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination of rollover based on the first roll rate RR1 and the roll angle RA1 obtained by integrating the first roll rate RR1 with respect to time. The RR1-RA1 determination unit 32 performs determination using a map indicating a relationship between roll rate and roll angle as shown in FIG. 4A where a region R1 is set in advance. When a point defined by the first roll rate RR1 periodically detected by the first roll rate sensor 22 and the roll angle RA1 obtained by integrating the first roll rate RR1 with respect to time is within the region R1, it is determined that the vehicle 10 has been rolled over. ). Iyoda fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to set the rollover determination scale by moving the rollover region in the direction of the first axis from a reference position by an amount of the detected first roll angle. However, Iyoda does disclose the rollover determination scale (Fig. 4a). Furthermore, Inoue teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to set the rollover determination scale by moving the rollover region in the direction of the first axis from a reference position by an amount of the detected first roll angle (0008 a threshold change functional unit for changing the determination threshold on a basis of a roll angular velocity, a tilt angle of the vehicle which is acquired by integrating the roll angular velocity, and either or both of a lateral direction acceleration and a steering wheel angle; , 0032 FIG. 3 shows a state in which this threshold change functional unit 5 changes the determination threshold. In this FIG. 3, the vertical axis shows the roll angular velocity .omega. (deg/s) and the horizontal axis shows the roll angle .theta. (deg), and thresholds which are respectively changed from the threshold .omega.th which is a reference threshold by a threshold .omega.a, a threshold .omega.b, and a threshold .omega. c are shown. , 0033). See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine. Claim(s) 6 and 7 Claim(s) 6 and 7 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected under the same grounds. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 USC 101, but would be allowable if the rejections were overcome. The closest prior art of record is JP202029147, which discloses adjusting a threshold roll angle based on manual driving of a vehicle, and US20050257981, which generally discloses vehicle roll determination based on roll angle and roll angular velocity. However, the aforementioned claims recite subject matter directed towards at least the following subject matter: wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether or not the detected first roll angle exceeds a predetermined reference roll angle, and halt determination of whether or not the vehicle has rolled over when it has been determined that the first roll angle exceeds the reference roll angle. While relevant to the claims, the prior art does not provide an adequate basis for rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 or 103 because the prior art found does not sufficiently teach nor suggest the limitations as claimed, hence the allowability of the claims. Examiner notes that amendment to the claims resulting in a change of scope may result in requirement of an updated search. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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. /KRISHNAN RAMESH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 2 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 3 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 4 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 5 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 6 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 7 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 8 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 9 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 10 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 11 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 12 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 13 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 14 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 15 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 16 Art Unit: 3663 Application/Control Number: 19/043,577 Page 17 Art Unit: 3663
Prosecution Insights