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 . This office action is in response to an application filed on 3/6/25. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 3/6/25 have been considered by the
Examiner and made of record in the application.
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 control unit (70) configured to perform the method in claims 17-18.
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. See at least,
Pg. 9 – “The control unit 70 may be an ECU”
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 19 states “A computer program…” and when looking into the specification of what the A computer program actually is the definition was provided to be “Pg. 8 - together with computer program code for performing the functions and actions of the embodiments herein. The program code mentioned above may also be provided as a computer program medium” The words may also be were bolded to show how only stating that the computer program may be a hardware component doesn’t strictly limit the computer program to be hardware and may also then include software per se which is not one of the 4 eligible subject matter that is patentable. See MPEP 2106.03..
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-14, and 16- 20 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
Claim 1, 3-6, 8, 10-14, and 16 is directed to A method for determining whether a vehicle driving on a road segment which road segment is part of, or leads towards, a target area is driving in, or towards the target area (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-14, and 16 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 17 and 18 are directed to a control unit and vehicle respectively (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 17 and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 19 are directed to a computer program (i.e., a software per se). Therefore, claim 19 is not within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claim 20 is 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity,
and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 46 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (mental process)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites :
obtaining at least one driving condition, which when not fulfilled, indicates that the vehicle is not driving in, or towards, the target area, wherein the at least one driving condition is defined by turning characteristics of driving on the road segment, and wherein the at least one driving condition comprises at least one required turning angle, obtaining from one or more sensors arranged in the vehicle, at least one driving parameter of the vehicle (1), wherein the at least one driving parameter of the vehicle is indicative of any one or more out of: a yaw rate of the vehicle, a steering wheel angle of the vehicle, at least one wheel angle of the vehicle (1), a lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and dead reckoning data of the vehicle, and determining whether the vehicle is driving in, or towards, the target area by determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition, and wherein determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition comprises determining whether the at least one driving parameter exceeds the at least one required turning angle.
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 whether the vehicle is driving in, or towards, the target area by determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition, and wherein determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition comprises determining whether the at least one driving parameter exceeds the at least one required turning angle” in the context of this claim encompasses a person observing a vehicle and making a judgment as to whether or not a turn is being made which can be done with pen and paper or simply within the mental. Essentially, the method is just automating position updates for the vehicle based on determining the environmental situation around the vehicle. 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”):
obtaining at least one driving condition, which when not fulfilled, indicates that the vehicle is not driving in, or towards, the target area, wherein the at least one driving condition is defined by turning characteristics of driving on the road segment, and wherein the at least one driving condition comprises at least one required turning angle, obtaining from one or more sensors arranged in the vehicle, at least one driving parameter of the vehicle (1), wherein the at least one driving parameter of the vehicle is indicative of any one or more out of: a yaw rate of the vehicle, a steering wheel angle of the vehicle, at least one wheel angle of the vehicle (1), a lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and dead reckoning data of the vehicle, and determining whether the vehicle is driving in, or towards, the target area by determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition, and wherein determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition comprises determining whether the at least one driving parameter exceeds the at least one required turning angle.
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, “obtaining at least one driving condition, which when not fulfilled, indicates that the vehicle is not driving in, or towards, the target area, wherein the at least one driving condition is defined by turning characteristics of driving on the road segment, and wherein the at least one driving condition comprises at least one required turning angle, obtaining from one or more sensors arranged in the vehicle, at least one driving parameter of the vehicle (1), wherein the at least one driving parameter of the vehicle is indicative of any one or more out of: a yaw rate of the vehicle, a steering wheel angle of the vehicle, at least one wheel angle of the vehicle (1), a lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and dead reckoning data of the vehicle, and” Each of the above cited limitations are simply further defining the mental process and explaining at what point is data collected or transmitted for the determining steps and are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering and predicting position data for use in the outputting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The system, is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates predicting position data based on environmental context.
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, the additional limitations of “obtaining” and “wherein the at least one driving parameter of the vehicle is indicative of” 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 “obtaining” and “wherein the at least one driving parameter of the vehicle is indicative of” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification recites that the components are all conventional computer components mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the system is anything other than what a conventional computer does within a vehicle. 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 collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 3-6, 8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16 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. Claim 3 mentions “…wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by…”, which would fail under Step 2A Prong Two as a step of mere data gathering and sending which would not make claim 3 to be considered patent eligible subject matter. Claim 4 and 5 mentions “…wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by”, which would fail under Step 2A Prong Two as a step of mere data gathering and sending which would not make claim 4 and 5 to be considered patent eligible subject matter. Claim 6 mentions “…determining whether the vehicle (1) has driven passed the chicane…”, which would fail under Step 2A Prong one as a mental process as the device is simply guessing at where the position of the vehicle would be which is something a human mind is capable of doing with pen and paper which would not make claims 6 to be considered patent eligible subject matter. Claim 8 mentions “…wherein the at least one required turning angle comprises a series of consecutive required turning angles …”, which would fail under Step 2A Prong Two as a step of mere data gathering and sending which would not make claim 8 to be considered patent eligible subject matter. Claim 10 mentions “when determining that the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition” which would fail under Step 2A Prong one as a mental process as the device is simply guessing at where the position of the vehicle would be which is something a human mind is capable of doing with pen and paper which would not make claims 10 to be considered patent eligible subject matter. Claim 11 mentions “obtaining a safety level of the target area” which would fail under Step 2A Prong Two as a step of mere data gathering and sending which would not make claim 11 to be considered patent eligible subject matter. Claim 13 mentions “east one driving parameter of the vehicle (1) is at least partially obtained” which would fail under Step 2A Prong Two as a step of mere data gathering and sending which would not make claim 13 to be considered patent eligible subject matter. Claim 14 mentions “wherein the vehicle (1) is at least partly autonomous” which would fail under Step 2A Prong Two as use of generic computer parts to perform the method does not make claim 14 patent eligible . Claim 16 mentions “whether the vehicle (1) is driving in, or towards, the target area (20)” which would fail under Step 2A Prong one as a mental process as the device is simply guessing at where the position of the vehicle would be which is something a human mind is capable of doing with pen and paper which would not make claims 16 to be considered patent eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 13, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by WEIRONG et al. (CN 112229418 A).
Regarding Claim 1 WEIRONG teaches A method for determining whether a vehicle driving on a road segment which road segment is part of, or leads towards, a target area is driving in, or towards the target area, (Pg. 4 – “receives vehicle data transmitted through the OBD box, is used for acquiring GPS data, performs DR calculation based on the GPS data and the vehicle data to determine a vehicle running track, and continuously performs map matching and lane updating in the calculation process to correct the vehicle running track in real time;” (equates to A method for determining whether a vehicle driving on a road segment which road segment is part of, or leads towards, a target area is driving in, or towards the target area, as the quote shows the positioning information of the vehicle being attained and corrected as the vehicle traveling along a path.)) the method comprising:- obtaining at least one driving condition, (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “discloses a vehicle positioning system based on an OBD box, which comprises: an OBD box for connecting with a vehicle to obtain vehicle data, the vehicle data including steering wheel angles;” (equates to the method comprising:- obtaining at least one driving condition, as the quote shows the gathering of steering angle information as the driving condition)) which when not fulfilled, indicates that the vehicle is not driving in, or towards, the target area, (Pg. 4 – “after the turning starting point is determined, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, if the steering wheel corner meets a first threshold value, determining a first turning ending point, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, and if the change trend is opposite and the next turning action is detected, updating the vehicle to an upgrading lane; if the change trend is the same or the next turning action is not detected,” (equates to which when not fulfilled, indicates that the vehicle is not driving in, or towards, the target area, As the quote shows the vehicle not entering the target area based on the threshold of the turning angle not being met wherein the target area is the lane change from the current lane position.)) wherein the at least one driving condition is defined by turning characteristics of driving on the road segment, (Pg. 4 – “after the turning starting point is determined, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, if the steering wheel corner meets a first threshold value, determining a first turning ending point, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, and if the change trend is opposite and the next turning action is detected, updating the vehicle to an upgrading lane; if the change trend is the same or the next turning action is not detected, turning to the step 3; and step 3: and continuously monitoring the steering wheel turning angle,” (equates to wherein the at least one driving condition is defined by turning characteristics of driving on the road segment, as the quote shows the road characteristics being understood within the mapping and the steering wheel angle then being monitored to track the changes the vehicle makes along the segment.)) and wherein the at least one driving condition comprises at least one required turning angle, (Pg. 4 –“ and continuously monitoring the steering wheel turning angle”)- obtaining from one or more sensors arranged in the vehicle, at least one driving parameter of the vehicle (1), wherein the at least one driving parameter of the vehicle is indicative of any one or more out of: a yaw rate of the vehicle, a steering wheel angle of the vehicle, at least one wheel angle of the vehicle (1), a lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and dead reckoning data of the vehicle, (Pg. 4 – “an OBD box for connecting with a vehicle to obtain vehicle data, the vehicle data including steering wheel angles;” (equates to obtaining from one or more sensors arranged in the vehicle, at least one driving parameter of the vehicle (1), wherein the at least one driving parameter of the vehicle is indicative of any one or more out of: a yaw rate of the vehicle, a steering wheel angle of the vehicle, at least one wheel angle of the vehicle (1), a lateral acceleration of the vehicle, and dead reckoning data of the vehicle, as the quote shows the steering wheel angle being captured as the driving parameter.)) and determining whether the vehicle is driving in, or towards, the target area by determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition, (Pg. 4 – “step 2: after the turning starting point is determined, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, if the steering wheel corner meets a first threshold value, determining a first turning ending point, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, and if the change trend is opposite and the next turning action is detected, updating the vehicle to an upgrading lane; if the change trend is the same or the next turning action is not detected, turning to the step 3; and step 3: and continuously monitoring the steering wheel turning angle, if the second threshold value is met, determining a second turning end point, and updating the lane. Further optimally, in the step 3, after the second turning end point is determined, the change of the steering wheel turning angle is continuously monitored, and if the change trend is opposite, the lane is updated; if the change trends are the same, lane updating is carried out until the steering wheel rotation angle is maintained to be zero.” (equates to and determining whether the vehicle is driving in, or towards, the target area by determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition, as the quote shows the at least one driving condition being met as the threshold value of the angle of turning being met and then a determination that the vehicle is changing lanes or a target area is understood to be where the vehicle is located within.)) and wherein determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition comprises determining whether the at least one driving parameter exceeds the at least one required turning angle. (Pg. 4 – “step 2: after the turning starting point is determined, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, if the steering wheel corner meets a first threshold value, determining a first turning ending point, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, and if the change trend is opposite and the next turning action is detected, updating the vehicle to an upgrading lane; if the change trend is the same or the next turning action is not detected, turning to the step 3; and step 3: and continuously monitoring the steering wheel turning angle, if the second threshold value is met, determining a second turning end point, and updating the lane. Further optimally, in the step 3, after the second turning end point is determined, the change of the steering wheel turning angle is continuously monitored, and if the change trend is opposite, the lane is updated; if the change trends are the same, lane updating is carried out until the steering wheel rotation angle is maintained to be zero.”)
Regarding Claim 3 WEIRONG teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by one or more curvatures of the road segment. (Pg. 4 – “can improve the accuracy of underground environment vehicle positioning. In the scheme, an electronic map is combined, and a turning starting point and a turning ending point are arranged in the map, so that the course angle data during turning is improved, and the positioning accuracy is improved. In the scheme, a simple processing method is adopted when the turning starting point and the turning ending point are determined” (equates to wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by one or more curvatures of the road segment as the quote shows the curve of the road being understood within the electronic map via means of the starting and ending point of the turning section.))
Regarding Claim 5 WEIRONG teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by a chicane of the road segment, wherein the chicane is arranged to require the vehicle to turn at least twice in at least two different directions to drive passed the chicane. (Pg. 7 – “After the first turning end point is detected, if the trend of the change of the steering wheel angle is opposite, the vehicle may turn continuously or may temporarily dial the steering wheel in an emergency, so that the trend of the change of the steering wheel needs to be continuously monitored. If the next turning action is detected (i.e. another turning starting point S is detected), it indicates that the vehicle is turning continuously, and as shown in fig. 6b, the vehicle turns from the first turning (numbered 1) to the second turning (numbered 2), and needs to be updated to the upgraded lane. The upgrade lane here refers to a lane opposite to the original driving direction” & See Also Pg. 12-13 – “Fig. 6A and Fig. 6B” (equates to wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by a chicane of the road segment, wherein the chicane is arranged to require the vehicle to turn at least twice in at least two different directions to drive passed the chicane. As the quote and figures shows a scenario in which turning is monitored across a plurality of different directions within a road region ))
Regarding Claim 6 WEIRONG teaches The method according to claim 5, wherein determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition comprises determining whether the vehicle has driven passed the chicane. (Pg. 8 – “f the next turning action is detected (i.e. another turning starting point S is detected), it indicates that the vehicle is turning continuously, and as shown in fig. 6b, the vehicle turns from the first turning (numbered 1) to the second turning (numbered 2), and needs to be updated to the upgraded lane. The upgrade lane here refers to a lane opposite to the original driving direction. In the case of opposite trend, if the next turning action is not detected, the turning is not continued, and the steering wheel is only temporarily turned, so that the trend of the steering wheel is continuously monitored. When the first turning end point is detected, if the trend of change is the same, the steering wheel may be turned only after the turning, and thus it is necessary to continue monitoring the change of the steering wheel. S33: continuing to monitor the steering wheel angle, if a second threshold (i.e. a second threshold condition) is met, determining a second turning end point E2, as shown in fig. 7, and continuing to monitor the change of the steering wheel angle, if the change trend is opposite, indicating that the action of turning the steering wheel occurs, then updating the lane; if the change trends are the same, the change of the steering wheel angle (the vehicle is in a state of continuing to turn) is continuously monitored until the steering wheel angle is maintained at a zero value or approaches to the zero value, the turning is finished, and the lane is updated.” (equates to wherein determining whether the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition comprises determining whether the vehicle has driven passed the chicane as the quote shows the monitoring of the vehicle’s steering is done in a section with the multiple turns being actualized and the updating of the vehicle’s lane position or the driving condition being satisfied once the turning is measured to be zero or the vehicle has past the section in which the chicane is occurring over. ))
Regarding Claim 8 WEIRONG teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one required turning angle comprises a series of consecutive required turning angles. (Pg. 7 – “After the first turning end point is detected, if the trend of the change of the steering wheel angle is opposite, the vehicle may turn continuously or may temporarily dial the steering wheel in an emergency, so that the trend of the change of the steering wheel needs to be continuously monitored. If the next turning action is detected (i.e. another turning starting point S is detected), it indicates that the vehicle is turning continuously, and as shown in fig. 6b, the vehicle turns from the first turning (numbered 1) to the second turning (numbered 2), and needs to be updated to the upgraded lane. The upgrade lane here refers to a lane opposite to the original driving direction” & See Also Pg. 12-13 – “Fig. 6A and Fig. 6B” (equates to wherein the at least one required turning angle comprises a series of consecutive required turning angles. As the quote and figures shows a scenario in which a variety of turns are existing within the road region and the continuous monitoring of the vehicles angle is monitored to understand the position of the vehicle through the region of consecutive turns.))
Regarding Claim 13 WEIRONG teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the least one driving parameter of the vehicle is at least partially obtained over a predefined time period and/or over a predefined distance driven by the vehicle. (Pg. 6 – “mobile terminal performs DR estimation based on GPS data and the vehicle data to determine the position of the vehicle at each sampling time. Suppose position point Q0（x0,y0) Is the initial position of the vehicle at a first moment, Q1（x1,y1）、Q2（x2,y2) The estimated positions of the vehicle at the second time and the third time, Q0And Q1The relationship between them is: [Image Omitted] ， [Image Omitted] ， [Image Omitted] ， [Image Omitted] ，s0for vehicles by position point Q0（x0,y0) Move to position point Q1（x1,y1) Is detected by the displacement of (a) a, [Image Omitted] ，v0for vehicles by position point Q0（x0,y0) Move to position point Q1（x1,y1) Speed during the period, t is the vehicle passing position point Q0（x0,y0) Move to position point Q1（x1,y1 ) Required time, s1For vehicles by position point Q1（x1,y1) Move to position point Q2（x2,y2) Is detected by the displacement of (a) a, [Image Omitted] ，v1for vehicles by position point Q1（x1,y1”)” (equates to wherein the least one driving parameter of the vehicle is at least partially obtained over a predefined time period and/or over a predefined distance driven by the vehicle as the quote shows the position points for the determination of the driving parameter being taken over a displacement of position and time period, ))
Regarding Claim 16 WEIRONG teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein determining whether the vehicle is driving in, or towards, the target area comprises determining that the vehicle is not driving in, or towards, the target area by determining that the at least one driving parameter does not fulfil the at least one driving condition. (Pg. 4 – “after the turning starting point is determined, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, if the steering wheel corner meets a first threshold value, determining a first turning ending point, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, and if the change trend is opposite and the next turning action is detected, updating the vehicle to an upgrading lane; if the change trend is the same or the next turning action is not detected,” (equates to wherein determining whether the vehicle is driving in, or towards, the target area comprises determining that the vehicle is not driving in, or towards, the target area by determining that the at least one driving parameter does not fulfil the at least one driving condition. As the quote shows the vehicle not entering the target area based on the threshold of the turning angle not being met wherein the target area is the lane change from the current lane position.))
Regarding Claim 19 WEIRONG teaches A computer program comprising program code means for performing the steps of claim 1 when said program is run on a computer. (Pg. 6 – “Fig. 5 shows a principle of an algorithm in which the mobile terminal performs DR estimation based on GPS data and”)
Regarding Claim 20 WEIRONG teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code performing the steps of claim 1 when said program product is run on a computer. (Pg. 8 – “The system is a positioning system integrating hardware and software, directly obtains general sensor signals at the vehicle end, adapts to most vehicle types, does not need to add additional sensors, has good universality and is low in cost. The positioning algorithm utilizes a high-precision map to correct the deviation in real time, eliminates accumulated errors, and particularly can achieve durable high-precision positioning in an underground parking lot without GPS signals through testing after being processed by a lane updating strategy shown in figures 2 and 3.” (equates to A non-transitory computer readable medium carrying a computer program comprising program code performing the steps of claim 1 when said program product is run on a computer as the quote shows a hardware integrated with software to run the cited limitations mapped above. ))
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weirong in view of Kwon et al. (KR 2022-0106893 A).
Regarding Claim 4 WEIRONG teaches The method according to claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet Weirong fails to teach wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by one or more obstacles arranged in the road segment.
Kwon teaches wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by one or more obstacles arranged in the road segment. (Pg. 1 – Abstract – “driving determination unit which determines whether the vehicle can turn or not based on a size of a separation distance between the plurality of obstacles detected from the obstacle detection unit;” (equates to wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by one or more obstacles arranged in the road segment. As the quote shows the vehicle turning based on obstacles detected.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Weirong to include wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by one or more obstacles arranged in the road segment as this limitation allows for obstacle detection to play part in the turning of the vehicle rather than simply path detection.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the turning characteristics is defined at least partly by one or more obstacles arranged in the road segment as this allows for the turning of the vehicle around objects to be monitored and considered rather than only at bends in the road or lane changes as shown by Weirong.
Claim(s) 10-12, 14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weirong in view of Wragg (US 2012/0166034 Al).
Regarding Claim 10 WEIRONG teaches The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising: - when determining that the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition, Pg. 4 – “step 2: after the turning starting point is determined, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, if the steering wheel corner meets a first threshold value, determining a first turning ending point, continuously monitoring the change of the steering wheel corner, and if the change trend is opposite and the next turning action is detected, updating the vehicle to an upgrading lane; if the change trend is the same or the next turning action is not detected, turning to the step 3; and step 3: and continuously monitoring the steering wheel turning angle, if the second threshold value is met, determining a second turning end point, and updating the lane. Further optimally, in the step 3, after the second turning end point is determined, the change of the steering wheel turning angle is continuously monitored, and if the change trend is opposite, the lane is updated; if the change trends are the same, lane updating is carried out until the steering wheel rotation angle is maintained to be zero.” (equates to when determining that the at least one driving parameter fulfils the at least one driving condition as the quote shows the turning threshold being met.))
Yet WEIRONG fails to teach adjusting an operation of the vehicle based on the target area.
Wragg teaches adjusting an operation of the vehicle based on the target area. (Pg. 1 – Abstract - “Vehicle position data and personnel position data can be provided to the safety system; and if the vehicle position data and personnel position data are determined by the safety system to indicate that the vehicle is in close proximity to personnel, the safety system applies a speed profile to the vehicle control system causing the vehicle to reduce speed or stop.” (equates to adjusting an operation of the vehicle based on the target area as the speed profile of the vehicle is reduced based on the position recognized by the safety system. )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by WEIRONG as this allows for vehicle control to be implemented based on the detection of the surrounding environment of the vehicle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include adjusting an operation of the vehicle based on the target area as this allows for the state of the vehicle to be altered while checking the change of position of the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 11 WEIRONG-Wragg teaches The method according to claim 10, as previously shown above.
Yet Weirong fails to teach wherein adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises obtaining a safety level of the target area, and adjusting the operation of the vehicle based on the obtained safety level.
Wragg teaches wherein adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises obtaining a safety level of the target area, and adjusting the operation of the vehicle based on the obtained safety level. (Pg. 4 – [0004] – “Accordingly the present invention also provides a safety system for a vehicle comprising: a vehicle control system; and a safety system; wherein vehicle position data and personnel position data is provided to the safety system; and if the vehicle position data and personnel position data are determined by the safety system to indicate that said vehicle is in close proximity to personnel, the safety system applies a speed profile to the vehicle control system causing the vehicle to reduce speed or stop.” & See Also Pg. 4 - [0013] – “Taking into account stopping distance in addition to this error in distance results in a large exclusion zone around the vehicle which the autonomous mission system must attempt to keep personnel outside, for fear that the errors mean that the vehicle and person are in danger of collision.” (equates to wherein adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises obtaining a safety level of the target area, and adjusting the operation of the vehicle based on the obtained safety level as the quotes shows the safety level being accessed by the proximity of the personnel around the vehicle and an adjusting happens by the reduction of the vehicle speed being actualized. ) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Weirong to include wherein adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises obtaining a safety level of the target area, and adjusting the operation of the vehicle based on the obtained safety level as this allows the target area to have a prescribed level of safety to be accessed and a mitigating action to be taken in response to the environmental assessment.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises obtaining a safety level of the target area, and adjusting the operation of the vehicle based on the obtained safety level as this allows for vehicle control to be performed after an environmental assessment is actualized by the vehicle system.
Regarding Claim 12 WEIRONG-Wragg teaches The method according to claim 10, as previously amped above.
Yet Weirong fails to teach wherein adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises triggering any one or more out of: - a reduced maximum speed of the vehicle,- an emergency stop of the vehicle, - an activation of one or more alerting lights on the vehicle,- a sound alert of the vehicle,- an activation of an obstacle avoidance system of the vehicle, and- a reconfiguration of one or more sub-systems of the vehicle.
Wragg teaches wherein adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises triggering any one or more out of: - a reduced maximum speed of the vehicle,- an emergency stop of the vehicle, - an activation of one or more alerting lights on the vehicle,- a sound alert of the vehicle,- an activation of an obstacle avoidance system of the vehicle, and- a reconfiguration of one or more sub-systems of the vehicle. (Pg. 4 – [0004] – “Accordingly the present invention also provides a safety system for a vehicle comprising: a vehicle control system; and a safety system; wherein vehicle position data and personnel position data is provided to the safety system; and if the vehicle position data and personnel position data are determined by the safety system to indicate that said vehicle is in close proximity to personnel, the safety system applies a speed profile to the vehicle control system causing the vehicle to reduce speed or stop.” (equates to wherein adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises triggering any one or more out of: - a reduced maximum speed of the vehicle,- an emergency stop of the vehicle, - an activation of one or more alerting lights on the vehicle,- a sound alert of the vehicle,- an activation of an obstacle avoidance system of the vehicle, and- a reconfiguration of one or more sub-systems of the vehicle as a speed reduction or stopping of the vehicle entirely is attained based on the personnel detected within the area )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Weirong to include wherein adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises triggering any one or more out of: - a reduced maximum speed of the vehicle,- an emergency stop of the vehicle, - an activation of one or more alerting lights on the vehicle,- a sound alert of the vehicle,- an activation of an obstacle avoidance system of the vehicle, and- a reconfiguration of one or more sub-systems of the vehicle as these limitation allows for a specific mitigating action to be taken in response to the environmental detection.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein adjusting the operation of the vehicle comprises triggering any one or more out of: - a reduced maximum speed of the vehicle,- an emergency stop of the vehicle, - an activation of one or more alerting lights on the vehicle,- a sound alert of the vehicle,- an activation of an obstacle avoidance system of the vehicle, and- a reconfiguration of one or more sub-systems of the vehicle as a speed reduction ensures a safety measure is taken when the vehicle is alerted to ensuring a lower speed would increase the safety for all environmental participants.
Regarding Claim 14 WEIRONG teaches The method according to claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet Weirong fails to teach wherein the vehicle is at least partly autonomous.
Wragg teaches (Pg. 4 – [0001] – “The present invention relates to a safety system for an autonomous ground vehicle” ). It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Weirong to include wherein the vehicle is at least partly autonomous as this allows for vehicle control to be executed by something other than the user.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the vehicle is at least partly autonomous as this allows for remote vehicle control to be actualized and the user not having to control the driving function at every step of the process.
Regarding Claim 17 WEIRONG teaches the method according to claim 1 as previously mapped above.
Yet Weirong fails to teach A control unit configured to perform
Wragg teaches A control unit configured to perform (Pg. 4 – [0012] – “Vehicle control system 60 receives the commands from the autonomous mission system 20 and translates these commands into simpler commands for the components of the vehicle, for example co-ordinating the steering, throttle and gears to operate in conjunction to make the vehicle drive in a straight line” (equates to A control unit configured to perform as the vehicle control system of this art allows for autonomous action to be implemented.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Weirong to include A control unit configured to perform as this allows for specific hardware to be implemented onboard of the vehicle to executed the claimed method.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include A control unit configured to perform as this allows for vehicle movement functions to be controlled by an onboard computer.
Regarding Claim 18 WEIRONG-Wragg teaches according to claim 17 as previously mapped above.
Yet Weirong fails to teach A vehicle comprising the control unit.
Wragg teaches A vehicle comprising the control unit. (Pg. 4 – [0012] – “Vehicle control system 60 receives the commands from the autonomous mission system 20 and translates these commands into simpler commands for the components of the vehicle, for example co-ordinating the steering, throttle and gears to operate in conjunction to make the vehicle drive in a straight line” (equates to A vehicle comprising the control unit. As the quote shows the vehicle comprising a control unit or system.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Weirong to include A vehicle comprising the control unit as this allows for vehicle control to be performed on board of the vehicle.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include A vehicle comprising the control unit as this allows for vehicle control operation to take place and not just positioning is being monitored as shown by Weirong.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP2016038838A . - An object of the present invention is to provide a sufficient amount of avoidance of the own vehicle with respect to the other vehicle when the route of the other vehicle is changed in the direction toward the own vehicle, thereby reducing a sense of incongruity of a passenger of the own vehicle. An information acquisition function for acquiring target information relating to another vehicle traveling in a monitoring area set to the side of the host vehicle,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667 /Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667 7/22/26
Prosecution Insights