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 .
Status of Claims
This is the First Office Action on the merits.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP-2024-054609, filed on 03/28/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/21/2025 and 12/08/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDSs are enclosed herewith.
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, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first recognizer configured to recognize”, “a second recognizer configured to recognize”,
and “a determiner configured to determine” in claim 1.
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.
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 § 112
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “a prescribed condition”. It is unclear to the Examiner what the metes and bounds of “a prescribed condition” are from the teachings of the specification [0009] – [0022] which appears to set no limits on what a “a prescribed condition” may be or include.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “when a longitudinal slope influence degree in pitch direction . . . based on the height information and a lateral slope influence degree in a roll direction . . . satisfy the prescribed condition”. It is unclear Examiner how two different variables (e.g. longitudinal slope influence degree in a pitch direct and a lateral slope influence degree in a roll direction) can satisfy the same “prescribed condition” recited in claim 1.
As to claim 17, the claim is rejected for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 18, the claim is rejected for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims inherit the defect of the claim from which they depend.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes
The claim is directed toward an apparatus which falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.3.
Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recites an abstract idea. The claim recites “a first recognizer configured to recognize a surrounding situation…”, “a second recognizer configured to recognize a second marking line…”, “wherein the map information includes height information and curve degree information of the movement path”, and “a determiner configured to determine whether the first marking line and the second marking line deviate from each other”, “the determiner is configured to prevent determination that the first marking line and the second marking line deviate from each other…” which given their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “…recognize a surrounding situation…”, “…determine...”, and “…prevent…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person identifying/recognizing their surrounding when operating a vehicle. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial except ion to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “a first recognizer”, “a second recognizer”, and “a determiner” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These components merely automate the aforementioned steps and thus do not integrate judicial exception into a “practical application”. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even 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.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more
than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements of “a first recognizer”, “a second recognizer”, and “a determiner” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. These additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 17 and 18 , claim 17 recites a method and claim 18 recites a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, both of which fall within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claims 17 and 18 recite similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim is not eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claims 2-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependency to the independent claims.
Claims 2-16 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, because the additional elements are directed toward
additional aspects of judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, the limitations of claim 2 further the abstract idea.
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under similar rationale as their independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US 20220306150 A1, cited in IDS filed on 12/08/2025) in view of Tamura et al. (US 20220067398 A1, cited in IDS filed on 12/08/2025).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 17 and 18, Inoue et al. discloses A
determination device comprising: a first recognizer (Figure 2, 132) configured to recognize a surrounding situation including a first marking line for defining a movement path along which a mobile object is moving, on the basis of an output of a detection device that detects a surrounding situation of the mobile object; ([0007] “a first recognizer configured to recognize a road marking for partitioning a traveling lane of a vehicle on the basis of an output of a detection device that has detected a surrounding situation of the vehicle”) a second recognizer (Figure 2, 134) configured to recognize a second marking line for defining a movement path around the mobile object from map information on the basis of positional information of the mobile object; and ([0007] “a second recognizer configured to recognize a road marking for partitioning the traveling lane on the basis of map information”, and [0064] “the second recognizer 134 acquires position information ((X1, Y1) in FIG. 4) of the vehicle M from the vehicle sensor 40 and the navigation device 50 and recognizes the markings LL2 and RL2 that partition the lane L1 present at the position of the vehicle M from the second map information 62 with reference to the second map information 62 on the basis of the acquired position information.”) a determiner configured to determine whether the first marking line and the second marking line deviate from each other, ([0068] “when a determination process is performed using the markings LL1 and LL2, the misrecognition determiner 154 determines that the markings match if a degree of deviation between the markings is less than a threshold value and determines that the markings do not match (or that there is a difference) if the degree of deviation between the markings is greater than or equal to the threshold value. The deviation may be, for example, deviation at a horizontal position (in the Y-axis direction in FIG. 4) (for example, a deviation quantity W1 between the markings LL1 and LL2 in FIG. 4), a difference at a vertical position (a length of a distance in the X-axis direction), or a combination thereof. The deviation may be a curvature change quantity difference between the markings LL1 and LL2 or an angle formed by the markings LL1 and LL2 (hereinafter referred to as a separation angle).”, [0082] “when values of the curvature change quantity and the separation angle are present within the area AR1, the misrecognition determiner 154 determines that there is no misrecognition in the first recognizer 132 and the second recognizer 134 (or that there is correct recognition therein)”, and see at least figure 4)
wherein the map information includes ([0041] “The second map information 62 is map information that is more accurate than the first map information 54. The second map information 62 includes, for example, information about a road shape and a road structure and the like. The road shape includes, for example, a branch point, a merge point, a tunnel (an entrance or exit), a curved road (an entrance or exit), a radius of curvature (or curvature) or a curvature change quantity of a road or a marking, the number of lanes, a width, and a gradient as a road shape that is more detailed than that of the first map information 54. The above-described information may be stored in the first map information 54.”)
the determiner is configured to prevent determination that the first marking line and the second marking line deviate from each other when the ([0009] “the determiner determines that there is misrecognition in the first road marking when the degree of deviation of the curvature change quantity is greater than or equal to a prescribed value or the angle is greater than or equal to a prescribed angle.” , [0068] “when a determination process is performed using the markings LL1 and LL2, the misrecognition determiner 154 determines that the markings match if a degree of deviation between the markings is less than a threshold value and determines that the markings do not match (or that there is a difference) if the degree of deviation between the markings is greater than or equal to the threshold value. The deviation may be, for example, deviation at a horizontal position (in the Y-axis direction in FIG. 4) (for example, a deviation quantity W1 between the markings LL1 and LL2 in FIG. 4), a difference at a vertical position (a length of a distance in the X-axis direction), or a combination thereof. The deviation may be a curvature change quantity difference between the markings LL1 and LL2 or an angle formed by the markings LL1 and LL2 (hereinafter referred to as a separation angle).”, and [0069] “when it is determined that the compared markings match, the misrecognition determiner 154 determines that there is no misrecognition in the first recognizer 132 and the second recognizer 134 (in other words, the first road marking and the second road marking have been correctly recognized). When it is determined that the compared markings do not match (or that there is a difference), the misrecognition determiner 154 determines that there is misrecognition in one or both of the first recognizer 132 and the second recognizer 134. When it is determined that the compared markings do not match, the misrecognition determiner 154 derives a degree of deviation in a curvature change quantity or a separation angle and performs a more detailed misrecognition determination process using a derived value.”)
However, Inoue et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the map information includes height information and prevent determination that the first marking line and the second marking line deviate from each other when the height information and the curve degree information satisfy a prescribed condition
Tamura et al. teaches wherein the map information includes height information
([0030] “The road map information includes information on road position, information on road shape (curvature, etc.), information on gradient of the road, information on position of intersections and branches, information on the number of lanes, and information on width of the lane LN and the position of each lane. The position information for each lane is information on position of the center of the lane LN and information on the boundary line of the lane LN, i.e., position information of the division line DL. In addition, the road map information includes information on road surface profile (road surface property) at each position of the road, that is, the value of the unevenness of the road surface from the reference height, and information representing the change of the unevenness (gradient of the road surface).”)
from each other when the height information and the curve degree information satisfy a prescribed condition ([0085] “determine whether or not a predetermined road surface condition is satisfied in which whether a degree of any of a step, a gradient or an undulation of the road surface including the division line in the traveling direction of the vehicle 10 captured or measured by a sensor such as a camera is greater than or equal to a predetermined degree. Not only when the vehicle 10 travels on the road surface with undulations and steps, but also when the vehicle 10 travels on a tunnel road (particularly, an entrance and exit of a tunnel) having a tunnel, a curved road, and a branch road, a deviation is likely to occur between a position of a lane detected by the camera image and an actual position of the lane. That is, even when the vehicle travels on a road having a predetermined structure, the lane position is likely to be deviated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Inoue et al. to incorporate additional data (e.g. road surface property) as taught by Tamura et al. “so that self-driving can be continuously performed in a good manner.” ([0081], Tamura et al.)
Regarding claim 2, Inoue et al. in view of Tamura et al. discloses The determination device
according to claim 1,
Inoue et al. discloses wherein the determiner is configured to predict that the first marking line recognized by the first recognizer deviates to one side or the other side in a movement path width direction when determination is made that the prescribed condition is satisfied compared to when the prescribed condition is not satisfied, and ([0077] “The misrecognition determiner 154 may determine at least whether or not there is misrecognition in the first recognizer 132 on the basis of a separation angle between the markings LL1 and LL2… it is assumed that the vehicle M is traveling in the lane L3 at a speed VM. The misrecognition determiner 154 derives an angle formed by the marking LL1 and the marking LL2 as a separation angle θL when the vehicle M is present at a prescribed position (X1, Y1). The misrecognition determiner 154 derives an angle formed by the marking RL1 and the marking RL2 as a separation angle θR. The separation angle θL is a deviation quantity of the marking LL1 with respect to the marking LL2 and the separation angle θR is a deviation quantity of the marking RL1 with respect to the marking RL2. The comparator 152 may derive the separation angles”) prevent the determination that the first marking line and the second marking line deviate from each other when a predicted deviation direction and a direction of the first marking line match each other. ([0078] “The misrecognition determiner 154 determines that there is misrecognition in the first recognizer 132 when one or both of the separation angles θL and θR are larger than or equal to a prescribed angle. The misrecognition determiner 154 may determine that there is misrecognition in the first recognizer 132 using only one of the separation angles θL and θR or determine misrecognition of a marking using an average angle between the separation angles θR and θL.”, and see at least [0068] – [0069])
Regarding claim 3, Inoue et al. in view of Tamura et al. discloses The determination device
according to claim 2,
Tamura et al. teaches wherein the height information is height information at a center of the movement path. ([0030] “The position information for each lane is information on position of the center of the lane LN and information on the boundary line of the lane LN, i.e., position information of the division line DL. In addition, the road map information includes information on road surface profile (road surface property) at each position of the road, that is, the value of the unevenness of the road surface from the reference height, and information representing the change of the unevenness (gradient of the road surface).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention with reasonable expectations of success to modify the invention of Inoue et al. and Tamura et al. to incorporate the teachings of Tamura et al. for the same reasons stated in the motivation statement of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Inoue et al. in view of Tamura et al. discloses The determination device
according to claim 2,
Inoue et al. discloses wherein the determiner is configured to perform determination
using the prescribed condition in each of a marking line on an outside of a turn and a marking line on an inside of a turn of the movement path. (Figure 5, [0073] “The first recognizer 132 derives a curvature change rate of the marking LL1 by substituting X1 into X of the above-described Eqs. (1) to (3) when the position of the representative point (for example, the center of gravity) of the vehicle M is predetermined to be (X1, Y1) as shown in FIG. 5. The first recognizer 132 derives a curvature change rate of the marking RL1 in a similar method.”, [0074] “The second recognizer 134 recognizes curvature change rates of the markings LL2 and RL2 with reference to the map information (the second map information 62) on the basis of the position information of the vehicle M.” , [0075] “The misrecognition determiner 154 compares degrees of deviation between the curvature change rates of the markings LL1 and LL2. In this case, the misrecognition determiner 154 acquires how much the marking LL1 deviates from the marking LL2 as a reference. For example, the misrecognition determiner 154 derives an absolute value of a value obtained by subtracting the curvature change rate of the marking LL1 from the curvature change rate of the marking LL2 on the basis of the position (X1, Y1) of the vehicle M as a degree of deviation in the curvature change rate. The misrecognition determiner 154 derives the degree of deviation in the above-described curvature change rate using the curvature change rates of the markings RL1 and RL2. The comparator 152 may derive the above-described degree of deviation.”, and [0076] “The misrecognition determiner 154 determines that there is misrecognition in the first recognizer 132 when one or both of a degree of deviation between the curvature change rates of the markings LL1 and LL2 and a degree of deviation between the curvature change rates of the markings RL1 and RL2 are greater than or equal to a prescribed value. The misrecognition determiner 154 may calculate an average value between the degree of deviation between the markings LL1 and LL2 and the degree of deviation between the markings RL1 and RL2 and determine that there is misrecognition in the first recognizer 132 when the calculated average value is greater than or equal to a prescribed value.”, and [0077] “The misrecognition determiner 154 may determine at least whether or not there is misrecognition in the first recognizer 132 on the basis of a separation angle between the markings LL1 and LL2.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimizu (US 20190071080 A1) teaches a driving assistance apparatus, an image acquiring unit acquires a captured image captured by an onboard camera. Based on the captured image acquired by the image acquiring unit, a boundary line recognizing unit recognizes a boundary line that demarcates a traffic lane in which an own vehicle is driving. A road information acquiring unit acquires road information related to a road on which the own vehicle is driving. Based on the road information acquired by the road information acquiring unit, a degree-of-reliability setting unit sets a degree of reliability of the boundary line recognized by the boundary line recognizing unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MISA HUYNH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/MISA H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights