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 Office Action is in response to the reply filed on July 6, 2026. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1 and 17 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system and claim 17 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1 and 17 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A vehicle control device comprising:
a recognition unit configured to recognize surroundings of a host vehicle; and
a control unit configured to perform at least one of: notifying a driver of the host vehicle; and
braking the host vehicle, in a case where a determination is made, from a recognition result of the recognition unit, that a two-wheeled vehicle and an obstacle are present outside a predicted trajectory of the host vehicle in front of the host vehicle and the two-wheeled vehicle is traveling between the host vehicle and the obstacle toward the obstacle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the claims are directed to observing another road user’s behavior, predicting a hazard and responding. Because the claim requires only one of notifying or braking, the claim can read at its broadest as notification only. The claim steps could be carried out by a human using cognition and is characterized as a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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 exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A vehicle control device comprising:
a recognition unit configured to recognize surroundings of a host vehicle; and
a control unit configured to perform at least one of: notifying a driver of the host vehicle; and
braking the host vehicle, in a case where a determination is made, from a recognition result of the recognition unit, that a two-wheeled vehicle and an obstacle are present outside a predicted trajectory of the host vehicle in front of the host vehicle and the two-wheeled vehicle is traveling between the host vehicle and the obstacle toward the obstacle.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “recognition unit” and “control unit” are generic units operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than functional terms.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, 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 (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
//
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim 17 is ineligible under 35 USC §101 for at least the same reasons as claims 1-13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0273072 to Hashimoto.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hashimoto.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 17, Hashimoto discloses a recognition unit configured to recognize surroundings of a host vehicle (see paragraph [0085]: obtain, from at least one onboard sensor (e.g., onboard sensor 550), environmental information around the first vehicle; information of one or more objects around the vehicle (e.g., a bicycle, a road obstacle, another vehicle, etc.)); and
a control unit configured to perform at least one of: notifying a driver of the host vehicle (see paragraph [0011]: providing, to a driver of the first vehicle, a feedback according to the risk of collision and the predicted trajectory.); and
braking the host vehicle, in a case where a determination is made, from a recognition result of the recognition unit, that a two-wheeled vehicle and an obstacle are present outside a predicted trajectory of the host vehicle in front of the host vehicle and the two-wheeled vehicle is traveling between the host vehicle and the obstacle toward the obstacle (see paragraph [0028], [0034], [0049] and [0056]: The vehicle 120 is driving in parallel to the bicycle 110, while the vehicles 130-150 are driving behind the vehicle 120 and the bicycle 110. a probability that the bicycle oversteering (turning too sharply) or understeering (not turning enough) during a turn at the predicted trajectory, a probability of the bicycle colliding with obstacles or hazards along its predicted trajectory. The vehicle system 200 may interoperate with the braking system of the vehicle to control the speed of the vehicle according to the collision risk. Controlling the braking system or the throttle system of the vehicle, thereby reducing the mitigation risk and avoiding the collision.).
With respect to dependent claim 2, Hashimoto discloses wherein the control unit performs at least one of: notifying the driver; and braking the host vehicle, in a case where a further determination is made that the two-wheeled vehicle is traveling at a first speed or higher (see paragraphs [0041] and [0052]: the received information may further include an alert or a warning, such as an alert of a potential collision between a surrounding vehicle and a bicycle, an alert about a potential sudden braking of the surrounding vehicle to avoid the collision, a red flag indicating that a specific cyclist and/or a specific driver of the surrounding vehicle may not be familiar with local traffic rules and regulations, and the like. The traveling speeds of the vehicle and the bicycle, and the predicted trajectories of the vehicle and the bicycle, thereby calculating or computing the risk of collision.).
With respect to dependent claim 3, Hashimoto discloses wherein the control unit performs at least one of: notifying the driver; and braking the host vehicle, in a case where a further determination is made that a deceleration required for the two-wheeled vehicle to stop with respect to the obstacle is equal to or larger than a first deceleration (see paragraph [0078]: the at least one sensor 550 may include one or more of: an accelerometer which measures and captures data associated with the acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle, the vehicle speed, and/or the vehicle travel distance; an image sensor (e.g., camera, etc.) which detects and captures image data surrounding or nearby the vehicle.).
With respect to dependent claim 6, Hashimoto discloses wherein the control unit performs at least one of: notifying the driver; and braking the host vehicle, in a case where a further determination is made that the host vehicle is traveling at a second speed or higher (see paragraph [0052]: the received information may further include an alert or a warning, such as an alert of a potential collision between a surrounding vehicle and a bicycle, an alert about a potential sudden braking of the surrounding vehicle to avoid the collision, a red flag indicating that a specific cyclist and/or a specific driver of the surrounding vehicle may not be familiar with local traffic rules and regulations, and the like. The module 250 may compare one or more of: the relative positions between the vehicle and the bicycle, the traveling speeds of the vehicle and the bicycle, and the predicted trajectories of the vehicle and the bicycle, thereby calculating or computing the risk of collision.).
With respect to dependent claim 8, Hashimoto discloses wherein the control unit performs at least one of: notifying the driver; and braking the host vehicle, in a case where a further determination is made that the host vehicle is present within a predetermined range with respect to the obstacle or a jumping-out prediction area of the two-wheeled vehicle (see paragraph [0049] and [0056]: a probability that the bicycle oversteering (turning too sharply) or understeering (not turning enough) during a turn at the predicted trajectory, a probability of the bicycle colliding with obstacles or hazards along its predicted trajectory. The vehicle control module 280 may calculate an optimal steering angle and trajectory adjustments required to maintain a safe separation distance from the bicycle while maintaining the vehicle's stability, and then provide a steering guidance to adjust the vehicle's steering wheel based on the optimal steering angle, thereby creating a virtual barrier or a safety zone between the vehicle and the bicycle.).
With respect to dependent claim 9, Hashimoto discloses wherein the control unit performs at least one of: notifying the driver; and braking the host vehicle, in a case where a further determination is made that a distance between the predicted trajectory of the host vehicle and the obstacle in a left-right direction is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold (see paragraph [0056]: the vehicle control module 280 may calculate an optimal steering angle and trajectory adjustments required to maintain a safe separation distance from the bicycle while maintaining the vehicle's stability, and then provide a steering guidance to adjust the vehicle's steering wheel based on the optimal steering angle, thereby creating a virtual barrier or a safety zone between the vehicle and the bicycle.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-3965. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
