DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to the applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on April 3, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below. Claims 14-17 have been amended. Claims 18-20 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. The applicant is advised to rewrite those claims into an independent form.
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 1-6 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. (See MPEP § 2106.)
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claim(s) 1-6 and 13-20.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim 1 recites the following limitation(s):
“acquiring a desired vehicle-following distance…determining a target speed parameter…determining a target distance parameter…determining a prediction time …” – (In these steps the act of “acquiring” is interpreted as collecting and “determining” is interpreted as analyzing; therefore, this/these step(s) is/are considered collecting information and analyzing it, which is categorized as a Mental Process according to See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III).
Yes, because Claims 13-20 repeat the subject matter of Claim 1 and analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, for Claims 1 and 13-20.
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer hardware and/or functions, for example, collecting and/or processing data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, for example, at least one processor; at least one memory; and a non-transitory computer storage medium. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, Claim(s) 1, 12, and 19 is/are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum1 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“It is well known in the art to provide a vehicle display screen located within the vehicle.” (US 20130224721 A1)
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
“Conventionally, an in-vehicle microphone device mounted on a vehicle interior, for example, a vehicle interior ceiling, is widely known.” (JP 2016105557 A)
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claims 1 and 13-20. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claim(s) 1, 12, and 19 is/are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-6 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, Claims 1-6 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arai, US 2005/0187698 A1.
As to claim 1, Arai teaches a prediction time determination method for adjusting a vehicle-following state, applied to a first vehicle, the method comprising (abstract and Fig. 3; e.g. limit the acceleration or deceleration of host vehicle):
acquiring a desired vehicle-following distance, a first traveling speed of the first vehicle, a second traveling speed of a second vehicle, and a vehicle distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle, wherein the first vehicle and the second vehicle travel in a same lane, and the first vehicle travels behind the second vehicle (¶ 10, 38; e.g. acquiring a target inter-vehicular distance, a traveling speed of the host vehicle, a traveling speed of a preceding vehicle, an actual inter-vehicular distance between the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle, wherein the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle is determined to be in the same lane);
determining a target speed parameter according to the first traveling speed and the second traveling speed (¶ 10; e.g. a target speed based on the relative speed of the host vehicle and the preceding vehicle);
determining a target distance parameter according to the desired vehicle-following distance and the vehicle distance (¶ 10; e.g. determining and setting a target inter-vehicle distance); and
determining a prediction time according to the target speed parameter and the target distance parameter (¶ 10-11; determining a predicted arrival time).
As to claim 4, Arai teaches determining an initial prediction time according to the target speed parameter and the target distance parameter (¶ 10-11); and correcting the initial prediction time to obtain the prediction time (¶ 14; e.g. new predicted arrival time).
As to claim 7, Arai teaches acquiring a prediction period, a prediction time, a first traveling speed of the first vehicle, a second traveling speed of a second vehicle, a desired vehicle-following distance, and a vehicle distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle; determining a minimum acceleration within the prediction time according to the prediction time, the first traveling speed, the second traveling speed, the desired vehicle-following distance, and the vehicle distance; and traveling according to the minimum acceleration and adjusting the vehicle-following state in the prediction period (¶ 10-11, 60 and Fig. 3; e.g. traveling based the limited acceleration).
Claims 13-20 are rejected based on the same rationale used for claim 1 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai, US 2005/0187698 A1 in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 2, Arai teaches determining a target speed parameter according to the first traveling speed and the second traveling speed comprises: determining a relative speed according to the first traveling speed and the second traveling speed (abstract). However, Arai does not specifically teach calculating a ratio of the relative speed to the first traveling speed to obtain the target speed parameter. The examiner takes Official Notice that calculating ratios of different speed data is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such ratio calculation into Arai’s teaching for improve vehicle speed control and reduce the likelihood of collision.
As to claim 3, Arai teaches determining a target distance parameter according to the desired vehicle-following distance and the vehicle distance comprises: determining a relative distance according to the desired vehicle-following distance and the vehicle distance (¶ 15, 78; e.g. relative positional relationship between the two vehicles). However, Arai does not specifically teach calculating a ratio of the vehicle distance to the desired vehicle-following distance to obtain the target distance parameter. The examiner takes Official Notice that calculating ratios of different distances associated with vehicles is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate such ratio calculation into Arai’s teaching for improve vehicle speed control and reduce the likelihood of collision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nishiwaki et al. (US 2023/0066819 A1) discloses vehicle assistance plan that calculates a target inter-vehicle distance based on relative speed information.
Bang (US 2023/0018012 A1) discloses controlling distance from a front vehicle.
Choi (US 2019/0263403 A1) discloses adaptive cruise control based on peripheral situation of the vehicle.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Cheung whose telephone number is (571) 272-6705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christian Chace, can be reached on (571) 272-4190.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceedings is assigned are as follows:
(571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”)
(571) 273-6705 (Draft Communications)
/MARY CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 September 15, 2026
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF
