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 .
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.
Claim 1-14, 22-24, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claims 1, 8, 22 are directed to a process, system, and a product Therefore, claims 1,8, 22 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step2A, 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 follow 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:
(Original) A method for coordination of vehicle operation, the method comprising:
detecting, by a sensor of a vehicle, an object in an environment of the vehicle;
determining, in response to the detecting, that the object corresponds to an in-path object intersecting a path of the vehicle;
identifying, in response to the detecting, that the object corresponds to a potentially invisible vehicle in the path of the vehicle, a lead vehicle, or a stationary object; and
modifying a mode of operation of the vehicle in response to the identifying.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining, identifying…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. 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”):
(Original) A method for coordination of vehicle operation, the method comprising:
detecting, by a sensor of a vehicle, an object in an environment of the vehicle;
determining, in response to the detecting, that the object corresponds to an in-path object intersecting a path of the vehicle;
identifying, in response to the detecting, that the object corresponds to a potentially invisible vehicle in the path of the vehicle, a lead vehicle, or a stationary object; and
modifying a mode of operation of the vehicle in response to the identifying.
For the following reason(s), 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 “detecting, by a sensor of a vehicle, modifying a mode of operation…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the detecting step from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The modifying step is also recited at a high level of generality (user controlling operation of the vehicle) which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “vehicle controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the identifying step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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 limitation(s) do/does 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 2019 PEG, 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determining and identifying… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detecting, by a sensor, modifying a mode of operation,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “detecting, by a sensor, modifying a mode of operation,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 23-24, 26-28 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) 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 2-7, 9-14, 23-24, 26-28 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-14, 22-24, 26-28 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1-14, 22-24. 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2021/0179091) in view of Oyama (US 2020/0310452)
As to claim 1 Yang discloses a method for coordination of vehicle operation, the method comprising:
detecting, by a sensor of a vehicle, an object in an environment of the vehicle (Paragraph 32 “Initially, the ADAS 20, or another vehicle system, detects an object 40, 50 forward of the vehicle in a “Detect Object” step 110. As used herein, “forward of the vehicle” refers to an object in the vehicles general direction of travel, and can include an object in the rear of the vehicle 10 when the vehicle 10 is traveling in reverse.”);
determining, in response to the detecting, that the object corresponds to an in-path object intersecting a path of the vehicle (Paragraph 32 “Initially, the ADAS 20, or another vehicle system, detects an object 40, 50 forward of the vehicle in a “Detect Object” step 110. As used herein, “forward of the vehicle” refers to an object in the vehicles general direction of travel, and can include an object in the rear of the vehicle 10 when the vehicle 10 is traveling in reverse.”);
Yang does not explicitly disclose identifying, in response to the detecting, that the object corresponds to a potentially invisible vehicle in the path of the vehicle, a lead vehicle, or a stationary object
Oyama teaches identifying, in response to the detecting, that the object corresponds to a potentially invisible vehicle in the path of the vehicle, a lead vehicle, or a stationary object(Paragraph 44 “On the other hand, there is a case where some traveling environment makes it impossible to detect the rearmost vehicle Pe until the own vehicle approaches the rearmost vehicle Pe. Such a case includes, for example, a case where a curve exists ahead of the own vehicle traveling path (own vehicle traveling lane), and a detection range of the camera unit 21 is partially cut off by a side wall provided along the curve as illustrated in FIGS. 3, 4, and 7, a case where a curve exists ahead of the own vehicle traveling path, and the detection range of the camera unit 21 is partially cut off by an obstacle such as a vehicle traveling on an adjacent lane on the inside of the own vehicle traveling path in a turning direction as illustrated in FIGS. 8 and 9, a case where a forward view is cut off by rain, fog, snowfall, or tunnel entrance as illustrated in FIG. 10 even when a forward path of the own vehicle traveling path is a straight path or the like, or a case where a forward view is cut off by backlight as illustrated in FIG. 11 even when the forward path of the own vehicle traveling path is a straight path or the like.”);;and
modifying a mode of operation of the vehicle in response to the identifying (Paragraphs45 “In these cases and when the rearmost vehicle Pe is detected (captured) based on only cloud information from the congestion information acquirer 22a earlier than by the camera unit 21, the vehicle control calculator 22b calculates a preliminary deceleration distance Z_predec as a second control target distance necessary to cause the own vehicle 100 to stop before the rearmost vehicle Pe by using a preset second deceleration (a preliminary deceleration a_cloud which is a preliminary deceleration smaller than the basic deceleration a_acc), and performs second deceleration control (preliminary deceleration control) using the preliminary deceleration a_cloud when an inter-vehicle distance (cloud inter-vehicle distance Z_cloud), which is a road distance to the rearmost vehicle Pe captured from the cloud information, falls below the preliminary deceleration distance Z_predec.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Yang to include the teachings of determining that the object corresponds to a potentially invisible vehicle in the path for the purpose of improving safety and preventing a collision with the object.
As to claim 2 Yang discloses a method further comprising:
determining, in response to the determination that the object corresponds to an in-path object, that the in-path object corresponds to a nearest in-path object to the vehicle (Paragraph 33).
As to claim 3 Oyama teaches a method further comprising:
detecting, by the sensor of the vehicle, a state of the environment of the vehicle (Paragraph 33-34);
selecting, based on the detecting the state of the environment, a navigation input (Paragraph 33-34); and
scanning, based on the navigation input, the environment (Paragraph 33-34).
As to claim 4 Oyama teaches a method further comprising:
detecting, by the sensor of the vehicle, that the environment includes a curved path (Paragraph 44).
As to claim 5 Oyama teaches a method further comprising:
modifying, in response to identifying that the object corresponds to the lead vehicle, the mode of operation to a following mode (Paragraph 45).
As to claim 6 Oyama teaches a method further comprising: modifying, in response to identifying that the object corresponds to the potentially invisible vehicle in the path of the vehicle, the mode of operation to a predetermined speed (Paragraph 45).
As to claim 7 Yang discloses a method further comprising:
modifying, in response to identifying that the object corresponds to the stationary object, the mode of operation to stop the vehicle (Paragraph 29).
As to claim 8 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 9 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 10 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 11 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 4.
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 14 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
As to claim 22 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
As to claim 23 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 2.
As to claim 24 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 3.
As to claim 26 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 5.
As to claim 27 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 6.
As to claim 28 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
8/18/2026
