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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “a line of sight of the driver” on line 5. The “a” should be corrected to “the” so that the claim reads “the line of sight of the driver.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising: an obtaining circuit that obtains first line of sight information that indicates a direction of a line of sight of a driver who is driving a vehicle;
a determining circuit that determines, based on the first line of sight information, whether a time for which the line of sight of the driver is directed to a second lane is longer than or equal to a first time, the second lane being adjacent to a first lane in which the vehicle is traveling;
and a control circuit that performs, when the determining circuit determines that the time is longer than or equal to the first time, control relating to a lane change to the second lane by the vehicle.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining, based on gathered gaze data, that a driver’s gaze has lingered on an adjacent lane for more than a threshold amount of time. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person having gaze information can determine that the driver is looking at an adjacent lane for more than a time threshold. The mere nominal recitation that the transmission is being executed by a computer/processor (“circuit”, “information processing device”) does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping. Notably, the claim does not positively recite any limitations regarding use of the determination in controlling the vehicle in a specific manner. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising: an obtaining circuit that obtains first line of sight information that indicates a direction of a line of sight of a driver who is driving a vehicle;
a determining circuit that determines, based on the first line of sight information, whether a time for which the line of sight of the driver is directed to a second lane is longer than or equal to a first time, the second lane being adjacent to a first lane in which the vehicle is traveling;
and a control circuit that performs, when the determining circuit determines that the time is longer than or equal to the first time, control relating to a lane change to the second lane by the vehicle.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the steps are being performed by an “information processing device” and various “circuits”, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The obtaining step recited in the claim is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an gaze data), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The control relating to a lane change step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating steps) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, merely providing a simple alert or notification (which is stated in Applicant’s specification as an example of “control relating to a lane change”) amounts to post-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the method steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data (which is one example listed in applicant’s disclosure as a control action) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 6 has similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
The dependent claims are likewise ineligible. Claim 2 recites additional post-solution activity, and claims 3-5 detail additional mental processes. Claim 7 simply applies the mental process to a generic computer application, and does not integrate into practical application.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220089163 by Qiao et al. (hereinafter “Qiao”), further in view of US20220219717 by LV et al. (hereinafter “LV”).
Regarding claim 1, Qiao teaches An information processing device comprising: an obtaining circuit that obtains first line of sight information that indicates a direction of a line of sight of a driver who is driving a vehicle; see for example paragraph [0024] describing a control system executing gaze-tracking of a driver.
a determining circuit that determines, based on the first line of sight information, whether a see for example paragraphs [0045] or [0051]-[0053], where the system tracks a driver’s gaze frequency to determine if the driver intends to change lanes.
and a control circuit that performs, when the determining circuit determines that the . See for example paragraph [0048] where the system presents a confirmation request message to the driver.
Qiao does not explicitly teach determining whether a time for which the line of sight of the driver is directed to a second lane is longer than or equal to a first time. Although Qiao uses a timer to determine an interval the driver is not looking at the rear-view mirror (see [0051]-[0054]), Qiao does not explicitly teach timing the driver’s gaze and comparing it to a threshold time.
However, LV teaches determining whether a time for which the line of sight of the driver is directed to a second lane is longer than or equal to a first time. See for example paragraph [0070], where the system determines the location of a driver’s gaze, and based on the gaze duration exceeding a threshold, infers that the driver wants to turn or make a lane change.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic lane change system of Qiao with the gaze timing system of LV with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to easily determine that a driver intends to change lanes, improving the utility of the system.
Claim 6 has similar limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regardign claim 2, Qiao teaches wherein in the control relating to the lane change, the control circuit performs at least one of notification relating to the lane change to the driver or control of traveling of the vehicle. See again paragraph [0048] where the system presents a confirmation request message to the driver.
Regarding claim 3, Qiao teaches wherein when the determining circuit determines that the see for example paragraph [0045], where the system determines a left or right destination for the merge based on the driver’s gaze.
the determining circuit determines, based on the second line of sight information, a destination in the second lane to which the driver is trying to move the vehicle by making the lane change, see additionally paragraphs [0041]-[0042], where the position in the left/right lane is determined longitudinally to maintain space from other vehicles.
and the control circuit performs control relating to the vehicle, based on the destination. See again paragraph [0048] where the system presents a confirmation request message to the driver.
Qiao does not explicitly teach determining that the time is longer than or equal to the first time.
However, LV teaches determining that the time is longer than or equal to the first time. See for example paragraph [0070], where the system determines the location of a driver’s gaze, and based on the gaze duration exceeding a threshold time, infers that the driver wants to turn or make a lane change.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic lane change system of Qiao with the gaze timing system of LV with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to easily determine that a driver intends to change lanes, improving the utility of the system.
Regarding claim 4, Qiao teaches wherein based on the second line of sight information, the determining circuit: determines, as the destination, an area behind a position of the vehicle in a case where the vehicle in motion continues to travel at a constant speed in the first lane, when the determining circuit determines that the line of sight of the driver is directed to an area behind the vehicle see paragraph [0049], where the system calculates the likelihood of driver lane change based on a graph of driver gaze data and vehicle speed, reading on constant speed. Then see again paragraphs [0053]-[0055], where the system detects the driver looking in the side mirror, reading on the line of sight of the driver is directed to an area behind the vehicle. Then the system determines that same area behind the vehicle (the adjacent lane which the driver is looking at) as the destination.
determines, as the destination, an area lateral to a position of the vehicle in a case where the vehicle in motion continues to travel at a constant speed in the first lane, when the determining circuit determines that the line of sight of the driver is directed to an area lateral to the vehicle see paragraph [0049], where the system calculates the likelihood of driver lane change based on a graph of driver gaze data and vehicle speed, reading on constant speed. Then see again paragraphs [0053]-[0055], where the system detects the driver looking in the side mirror, reading on the line of sight of the driver is directed to an area lateral to the vehicle. Then the system determines that same area lateral to the vehicle (the adjacent lane which the driver is looking at) as the destination.
and determines, as the destination, an area ahead of a position of the vehicle in a case where the vehicle in motion continues to travel at a constant speed in the first lane, when the determining circuit determines that the line of sight of the driver is directed to an area ahead of the vehicle . See paragraph [0049], where the system calculates the likelihood of driver lane change based on a graph of driver gaze data and vehicle speed, reading on constant speed. Then see again paragraphs [0053]-[0055], where the system detects the driver looking on-road, reading on the line of sight of the driver is directed to an area ahead of the vehicle. Then the system determines that same area ahead of the vehicle (the adjacent lane which the driver is looking at) as the destination.
Qiao does not explicitly teach a driver’s gaze being directed to an area for at least a second time in sum total during a predetermined period.
However, LV teaches determining driver’s gaze being directed to an area for at least a second time in sum total during a predetermined period. See for example paragraph [0070], where the system determines the location of a driver’s gaze over a set duration. When the driver’s gaze exceeds the threshold within the set duration (e.g. 2 seconds out of 5 seconds), the system infers that the driver wants to turn or make a lane change.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic lane change system of Qiao with the gaze timing system of LV with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to easily determine that a driver intends to change lanes, improving the utility of the system.
Regarding claim 5, Qiao teaches wherein based on the second line of sight information, the determining circuit: determines, as the destination, an area behind a position of the vehicle in a case where the vehicle in motion continues to travel at a constant speed in the first lane, when the determining circuit determines that the line of sight of the driver is continuously directed to an area behind the vehicle see paragraph [0049], where the system calculates the likelihood of driver lane change based on a graph of driver gaze data and vehicle speed, reading on constant speed. Then see again paragraphs [0053]-[0055], where the system detects the driver looking in the side mirror, reading on the line of sight of the driver is directed to an area behind the vehicle. Then the system determines that same area behind the vehicle (the adjacent lane which the driver is looking at) as the destination.
determines, as the destination, an area lateral to a position of the vehicle in a case where the vehicle in motion continues to travel at a constant speed in the first lane, when the determining circuit determines that the line of sight of the driver is continuously directed to an area lateral to the vehicle see paragraph [0049], where the system calculates the likelihood of driver lane change based on a graph of driver gaze data and vehicle speed, reading on constant speed. Then see again paragraphs [0053]-[0055], where the system detects the driver looking in the side mirror, reading on the line of sight of the driver is directed to an area lateral to the vehicle. Then the system determines that same area lateral to the vehicle (the adjacent lane which the driver is looking at) as the destination.
and determines, as the destination, an area ahead of a position of the vehicle in a case where the vehicle in motion continues to travel at a constant speed in the first lane, when the determining circuit determines that the line of sight of the driver is continuously directed to an area ahead of the vehicle . See paragraph [0049], where the system calculates the likelihood of driver lane change based on a graph of driver gaze data and vehicle speed, reading on constant speed. Then see again paragraphs [0053]-[0055], where the system detects the driver looking on-road, reading on the line of sight of the driver is directed to an area ahead of the vehicle. Then the system determines that same area ahead of the vehicle (the adjacent lane which the driver is looking at) as the destination.
Qiao does not explicitly teach a driver’s gaze being directed to an area for at least a third time.
However, LV teaches a driver’s gaze being directed to an area for at least a third time. See for example paragraph [0070], where the system determines the location of a driver’s gaze and its duration. When the driver’s gaze exceeds the threshold duration (e.g. 1 or 2 seconds), the system infers that the driver wants to turn or make a lane change.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic lane change system of Qiao with the gaze timing system of LV with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so allows the system to easily determine that a driver intends to change lanes, improving the utility of the system.
Regarding claim 7, Qiao teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the information processing method according to claim 6. See for example paragraphs [0033]-[0038], where the system implements the process using computer programs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20240025450 by Churay et al. teaching inferring a driver’s lane change intention based on time thresholds of their gaze.
US20160167661 by Kuehne et al. teaching determining a driver’s lane change intention based on their line of vision.
US20240300509 by Musabini teaching analyzing driver gaze over a time interval to determine a lane change intention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN THOMAS SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-0522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.
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.
/JORDAN T SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights