DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 04/17/2025 and 12/09/2025 has/have been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Objection to Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Applicant’s “Abstract Replacement Sheet” filed 04/17/2025 is blank, and the additional document marked Abstract filed 04/17/2025 exceeds the 150-word count maximum. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Status of Application
The preliminarily amended list of claims 10-18 is pending in this application. In the preliminarily amended claim set filed 04/17/2025:
Claim(s) 1-9 has/have been canceled.
Claim(s) 10-18 has/have been newly added.
Claim(s) 10, 17 and 18 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Non-Final Rejection
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: “an information output portion that outputs information” in claims 10, 17 and 18; “a notification control portion that controls the information output portion” in claim 10; “a recognition portion that recognizes a user and an object” and “a movement control portion that controls the movable body” in claim 11.
The claim limitations presented above has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder(s) “portion” respectively coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, the Applicant describes the structure of the “information output portion” as follows: “The information output portion 116 and the information output portion 118 are a device capable of displaying information such as a segment display using a LED (light- emitting diode), a liquid crystal display, or an organic EL (Electro Luminescence) display” in at least ¶: 0030, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “information output portion” as including but not limited to a visual display device, for example.
In the specification, the Applicant describes the structure of the “notification control portion” as follows: “The control device 200 includes, for example, an information processing portion 202, a recognition portion 204, a trajectory generation portion 206, a travel control portion 208, an illumination control portion 210, an output control portion (notification control portion) 220, and a storage portion 230. The information processing portion 202, the recognition portion 204, the trajectory generation portion 206, the travel control portion 208, the illumination control portion 210, and the output control portion 220 are realized, for example, by a hardware processor such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) executing a program (software)” in at least ¶: 0034, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “notification control portion” as including but not limited to generic computing components that in conjunction with software achieve the claimed functionality, for example.
In the specification, the Applicant describes the structure of the “recognition portion” as follows: “The control device 200 includes, for example, an information processing portion 202, a recognition portion 204, a trajectory generation portion 206, a travel control portion 208, an illumination control portion 210, an output control portion (notification control portion) 220, and a storage portion 230. The information processing portion 202, the recognition portion 204, the trajectory generation portion 206, the travel control portion 208, the illumination control portion 210, and the output control portion 220 are realized, for example, by a hardware processor such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) executing a program (software)” in at least ¶: 0034, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “recognition portion” as including but not limited to generic computing components that in conjunction with software achieve the claimed functionality, for example
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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(s) 10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 10, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite using a computer/computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program to perform the following display method: 1) outputting light of a first color in the information output region when the movable body is traveling straight; 2) determining that a turn is upcoming within a first predetermined time; 3) either outputting light of a second color/powering off a light for a second predetermined time prior to the turn that is upcoming within the first predetermined time; and 4) outputting light indicating the turn direction in the information output region when the movable body is scheduled to start an operation of turning.
The limitations of: 1) outputting light of a first color in the information output region when the movable body is traveling straight; 2) determining that a turn is upcoming within a first predetermined time; 3) either outputting light of a second color/powering off a light for a second predetermined time prior to the turn that is upcoming within the first predetermined time; and 4) outputting light indicating the turn direction in the information output region when the movable body is scheduled to start an operation of turning, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting using a computer/computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the using a computer/computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of: determining the traveling direction and current position of the moveable body with respect to an upcoming turn, and subsequently determining that either a light of color 1, light of color 2 or turn signal should be displayed based on predetermined constraints. The above claim limitations pertaining to steps: 1), 3) and 4), comprise steps that perform “data outputting” in the form of displaying the above user-selected decisions on a display screen and an arbitrarily determined color coding and therefore recite Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity(Insignificant Post-Solution Activity as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(g)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements – using a computer/computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program, applied to a moveable body, to perform the following display method: 1) outputting light of a first color in the information output region when the movable body is traveling straight; 2) determining that a turn is upcoming within a first predetermined time; 3) either outputting light of a second color/powering off a light for a second predetermined time prior to the turn that is upcoming within the first predetermined time; and 4) outputting light indicating the turn direction in the information output region when the movable body is scheduled to start an operation of turning. The computer/computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does not/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a “moveable body” comprising computer/computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program to perform the following display method: 1) outputting light of a first color in the information output region when the movable body is traveling straight; 2) determining that a turn is upcoming within a first predetermined time; 3) either outputting light of a second color/powering off a light for a second predetermined time prior to the turn that is upcoming within the first predetermined time; and 4) outputting light indicating the turn direction in the information output region when the movable body is scheduled to start an operation of turning, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using by reciting that the generic computer component is applied to another device (“moveable body”). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component applied to a vehicle to perform an abstract methodology, cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 12-16 when analyzed as a whole, is/are held to be patent ineligible under 35 § U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1, 17 and 18.
Examiner’s Note: In order to overcome the rejections of claims 10 and 12-18 under 35 § U.S.C. 101, the Examiner suggests, amending independent claims 10, 17 and 18 to recite the following claim limitation from claim 11, the Examiner determined positively recited a control step for the movable body, namely: “a movement control portion that controls the movable body so that the movable body moves together with the user while avoiding the object at the periphery,” that satisfies the requirements set forth by 35 § U.S.C. 101.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 10, 12, 14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0072218 A1) in view of Nordbruch (United States Patent Publication 2017/0232891 A1) referenced as Sweeney and Nordbruch, respectively, moving forward.
Examiner’s Note: With respect to claims 10, 13, 17 and 18, claims 10, 17 and 18 recite two alternatives to the Applicant’s claimed invention using the alternative operator “or,” allowing the Examiner to select one of the two alternatives to sufficiently reject the claim using prior art. In particular, the Applicant recites: 1) before a first predetermined time from the start and after causing the information output portion to output light of a second color which does not include the information indicating the turn direction and has a different brightness from the light of the first color in the information output region for a predetermined time OR 2) after turning off a light in the information output region for the predetermined time.
These alternative embodiments cannot occur simultaneously in view of at least ¶: 0069 of the Applicant’s specification, which states: “Further, alternatively, when the movable body 100 is scheduled to start the operation of turning, the output control portion 220 may turn off the light in the radiation possible region for a predetermined time before the first predetermined time from the start of the operation of turning, then cause the information output portion 116 to output the information indicating the turn direction in the radiation possible region, and cause the information output portion 116 to output the information indicating the turn direction even when the movable body 100 is turning.”
The Examiner has rejected claims, 10, 17 and 18 by mapping the prior art references to the second alternative above. Claim 13, which further depends from claim 10, recites claim limitations pertaining to only alternative 1) above. Since the Applicant has allowed the Examiner to decide which of the above alternative to examine via the alternative operator “or,” the Examiner is not required to provide prior art rejections for claim 13 to demonstrate that it is not allowable – End of Examiner’s Note.
With respect to claim 10, Sweeney discloses:
“A movable body comprising: an information output portion that outputs information indicating a turn direction of the movable body in an information output region that is visually recognizable from a periphery of the movable body which is movable in a region where a pedestrian is capable of passing” [Sweeney; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited Sweeney discloses a self-driving vehicle (SDV, 400 in Fig. 4A) that comprises a plurality of visual outputs through at least a heads-up display (404 in Fig. 4A), mirror display (426 in Fig. 4A) and bumper display (414 in Fig. 4A) in order to communicate with pedestrians (418 in Fig. 4A); Fig. 3, 4A; ¶: 0073-0075, 0079-0085];
“and a notification control portion that controls the information output portion, wherein the notification control portion causes the information output portion to output light of a first color in the information output region when the movable body is traveling straight, and causes the information output portion to output the information indicating the turn direction in the information output region when the movable body is scheduled to start an operation of turning” [Sweeney; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sweeney further discloses that the SDV further comprises a control system (100 in Fig. 1) that controls the light strip to generate color coded patterns, for example illuminating green for forward acceleration or yellow for turning maneuvers. Sweeney further discloses that lighting sequences are initiated preemptively based on data identified from the current route; Fig. 1, 3, 4A; ¶: 0073-0075, 0079-0085].
And while Sweeney discloses: that the SDV looks ahead to an upcoming intersection and subsequently switches the output device to an intention standby mode until a critical distance before the intersection, for example in a range between 100 feet and 50 feet prior to the SDV reaching the intersection, which one of ordinary skill would be able to convert to a time-based threshold based on the traveling speed of the vehicle. A vehicle traveling at 25 miles per hour would travel the range between 100 feet and 50 feet prior to the SDV reaching the intersection in 1.36 seconds, for example. Sweeney does not specifically state how the output devices function during the intention standby mode; for example as Nordbruch teaches to switch of an external lighting system for a vehicle for a predetermined time prior to performing a turn [Sweeney; ¶: 0057-0059];
Sweeney does not specifically state: “before a first predetermined time from the start and after causing the information output portion to output light of a second color which does not include the information indicating the turn direction and has a different brightness from the light of the first color in the information output region for a predetermined time or after turning off a light in the information output region for the predetermined time;” however, this is known in the art.
Nordbruch, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for autonomously controlling moving bodies, teaches: “before a first predetermined time from the start and after causing the information output portion to output light of a second color which does not include the information indicating the turn direction and has a different brightness from the light of the first color in the information output region for a predetermined time or after turning off a light in the information output region for the predetermined time” [Nordbruch; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Nordbruch teaches switching off a turn signal for a predetermined amount of time prior to re-activating the turn signal for an upcoming turning operation of a vehicle that is operating in an autonomous travel mode. Due to the alternative operator OR in the cited claim limitation, the Examiner is not required to cite prior art to reject the non-selected alternative (see Examiner’s Note above); ¶: 0031-0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays as disclosed by Sweeney to incorporate the teachings regarding turning off a hazard light for a predetermined time leading up to a maneuver such as controlling an autonomous vehicle as taught by Nordbruch with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays that is more robust in its ability to communicate effectively with other surrounding vehicles while allowing efficient use of the vehicle’s turn lamps signals. This results in surrounding vehicles, some of which may be operated by manual driving, being more safely able to operate their vehicle based on the clearly communicated intentions of the AV [Nordbruch; ¶: 0023-0026, 0036].
With respect to claim 12, Sweeney discloses: “wherein the predetermined time is a time of 0.2 seconds or more” [Sweeney; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sweeney further discloses that the SDV looks ahead to an upcoming intersection and subsequently switches the output device to an intention standby mode until a critical distance before the intersection, for example in a range between 100 feet and 50 feet prior to the SDV reaching the intersection, which one of ordinary skill would be able to convert to a time-based threshold based on the traveling speed of the vehicle. A vehicle traveling at 25 miles per hour would travel the range between 100 feet and 50 feet prior to the SDV reaching the intersection in 1.36 seconds, for example. The calculated 1.36 seconds satisfies the Applicant's constraint that the predetermined time is at least 0.2 seconds; ¶: 0057-0059].
With respect to claim 14, Sweeney discloses: “wherein the information output region includes a first information output region and a second information output region, the first information output region is provided on a front portion of the movable body so as to be visually recognizable by a person at the periphery of the movable body present in a forward direction of the movable body, and the second information output region is provided on a rear portion of the movable body so as to be visually recognizable by a person at the periphery of the movable body present in a rearward direction of the movable body” [Sweeney; "For example, when the AV arrives at a four-way stop sign just prior to a human-driven vehicle, the intention signaling system can generate an intention output based on sensor data from an on-board sensor array or computing system of the AV. The intention signaling system can provide the intention output to the human driver of the proximate vehicle indicating that the AV will proceed through the intersection first. In many examples, the intention signaling system can display the intention output on a number of displays visible to the human driver. Such displays can be situated within the AV (e.g., a head-up display) or integrated with or otherwise mounted to the exterior surfaces of the AV (e.g., as a bumper displays along the front and/or rear bumper of the AV or on the side panels of the AV);" ¶: 0013].
With respect to claim 17, Sweeney discloses:
“A movable body control method, by way of a computer, performing: a process of controlling an information output portion that outputs information indicating a turn direction of a movable body in an information output region that is visually recognizable from a periphery of the movable body when the movable body that is movable in a region where a pedestrian is capable of passing is traveling straight, and causing the information output portion to output light of a first color in the information output region; and a process of causing the information output portion to output the information indicating the turn direction in the information output region when the movable body is scheduled to start an operation of turning” [Sweeney; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sweeney further discloses that the SDV further comprises a control system (100 in Fig. 1) that controls the light strip to generate color coded patterns, for example illuminating green for forward acceleration or yellow for turning maneuvers. Sweeney further discloses that lighting sequences are initiated preemptively based on data identified from the current route;].
And while Sweeney discloses: that the SDV looks ahead to an upcoming intersection and subsequently switches the output device to an intention standby mode until a critical distance before the intersection, for example in a range between 100 feet and 50 feet prior to the SDV reaching the intersection, which one of ordinary skill would be able to convert to a time-based threshold based on the traveling speed of the vehicle. A vehicle traveling at 25 miles per hour would travel the range between 100 feet and 50 feet prior to the SDV reaching the intersection in 1.36 seconds, for example. Sweeney does not specifically state how the output devices function during the intention standby mode; for example as Nordbruch teaches to switch of an external lighting system for a vehicle for a predetermined time prior to performing a turn [Sweeney; ¶: 0057-0059];
Sweeney does not specifically state: “before a first predetermined time from the start and after causing the information output portion to output light of a second color which does not include the information indicating the turn direction and has a different brightness from the light of the first color in the information output region for a predetermined time or after turning off a light in the information output region for the predetermined time;” however, this is known in the art.
Nordbruch teaches: “before a first predetermined time from the start and after causing the information output portion to output light of a second color which does not include the information indicating the turn direction and has a different brightness from the light of the first color in the information output region for a predetermined time or after turning off a light in the information output region for the predetermined time” [Nordbruch; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Nordbruch teaches switching off a turn signal for a predetermined amount of time prior to re-activating the turn signal for an upcoming turning operation of a vehicle that is operating in an autonomous travel mode. Due to the alternative operator OR in the cited claim limitation, the Examiner is not required to cite prior art to reject the non-selected alternative (see Examiner’s Note above); ¶: 0031-0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays as disclosed by Sweeney to incorporate the teachings regarding turning off a hazard light for a predetermined time leading up to a maneuver such as controlling an autonomous vehicle as taught by Nordbruch with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays that is more robust in its ability to communicate effectively with other surrounding vehicles while allowing efficient use of the vehicle’s turn lamps signals. This results in surrounding vehicles, some of which may be operated by manual driving, being more safely able to operate their vehicle based on the clearly communicated intentions of the AV [Nordbruch; ¶: 0023-0026, 0036].
With respect to claim 18, Sweeney discloses:
“A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute:” [Sweeney; "A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a control system of a self-driving vehicle (SDV), cause the one or more processors to;" Claim 13];
“a process of controlling an information output portion that outputs information indicating a turn direction of a movable body in an information output region that is visually recognizable from a periphery of the movable body when the movable body that is movable in a region where a pedestrian is capable of passing is traveling straight, and causing the information output portion to output light of a first color in the information output region; and a process of causing the information output portion to output the information indicating the turn direction in the information output region when the movable body is scheduled to start an operation of turning” [Sweeney; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Sweeney further discloses that the SDV further comprises a control system (100 in Fig. 1) that controls the light strip to generate color coded patterns, for example illuminating green for forward acceleration or yellow for turning maneuvers. Sweeney further discloses that lighting sequences are initiated preemptively based on data identified from the current route;].
And while Sweeney discloses: that the SDV looks ahead to an upcoming intersection and subsequently switches the output device to an intention standby mode until a critical distance before the intersection, for example in a range between 100 feet and 50 feet prior to the SDV reaching the intersection, which one of ordinary skill would be able to convert to a time-based threshold based on the traveling speed of the vehicle. A vehicle traveling at 25 miles per hour would travel the range between 100 feet and 50 feet prior to the SDV reaching the intersection in 1.36 seconds, for example. Sweeney does not specifically state how the output devices function during the intention standby mode; for example as Nordbruch teaches to switch of an external lighting system for a vehicle for a predetermined time prior to performing a turn [Sweeney; ¶: 0057-0059];
Sweeney does not specifically state: “before a first predetermined time from the start and after causing the information output portion to output light of a second color which does not include the information indicating the turn direction and has a different brightness from the light of the first color in the information output region for a predetermined time or after turning off a light in the information output region for the predetermined time;” however, this is known in the art.
Nordbruch teaches: “before a first predetermined time from the start and after causing the information output portion to output light of a second color which does not include the information indicating the turn direction and has a different brightness from the light of the first color in the information output region for a predetermined time or after turning off a light in the information output region for the predetermined time” [Nordbruch; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Nordbruch teaches switching off a turn signal for a predetermined amount of time prior to re-activating the turn signal for an upcoming turning operation of a vehicle that is operating in an autonomous travel mode. Due to the alternative operator OR in the cited claim limitation, the Examiner is not required to cite prior art to reject the non-selected alternative (see Examiner’s Note above); ¶: 0031-0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays as disclosed by Sweeney to incorporate the teachings regarding turning off a hazard light for a predetermined time leading up to a maneuver such as controlling an autonomous vehicle as taught by Nordbruch with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays that is more robust in its ability to communicate effectively with other surrounding vehicles while allowing efficient use of the vehicle’s turn lamps signals. This results in surrounding vehicles, some of which may be operated by manual driving, being more safely able to operate their vehicle based on the clearly communicated intentions of the AV [Nordbruch; ¶: 0023-0026, 0036].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney in view of Nordbruch and Samdaria et al. (United States Patent 11,409,295 B1) referenced as Samdaria moving forward.
With respect to claim 11, Sweeney does not specifically state:
“comprising: a recognition portion that recognizes a user and an object at the periphery of the movable body based on an image in which the periphery of the movable body is captured;”
“and a movement control portion that controls the movable body so that the movable body moves together with the user while avoiding the object at the periphery.”
Samdaria, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for autonomously controlling moving bodies, teaches:
“comprising: a recognition portion that recognizes a user and an object at the periphery of the movable body based on an image in which the periphery of the movable body is captured” [Samdaria; "Interactions may involve a single behavior. In one example, the task may comprise a security or sentry task in which the robot 104 travels throughout the physical environment avoiding users 102 and looking for events that exceed predetermined thresholds. In another example, the task may comprise a “follow me” feature in which the robot 104 follows a user 102 using a follow behavior. For example, the user 102 may participate in a video call using the robot 104. The camera on the mast may be used to acquire video for transmission while the display is used to present video that is received. The robot 104 may use data from one or more sensors 114 to determine a location of the user 102 relative to the robot 104, and track and follow the user 102. In one implementation, computer vision techniques may be used to locate the user 102 within image data acquired by the cameras;" Col: 15, Lines: 24-39];
“and a movement control portion that controls the movable body so that the movable body moves together with the user while avoiding the object at the periphery” [Samdaria; "As the user 102 passes the robot 104 and continues to move, the robot 104 follows, attempting to maintain a position that is within the interaction distance 408 and within the low proxemic cost areas of the proxemic cost map 150, while avoiding obstacles 122;" Fig. 1; Col: 28, Lines: 23-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays as disclosed by Sweeney to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a robot (a type of SDV) to follow a user while avoiding obstacles as taught by Samdaria with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays that is more robust in its ability to: “Use of the predicted trajectory of the user improves the ability of the robot to safely and effectively operate around and with users. The robot is able to anticipate the movements of the user and more easily avoid collisions with the user, while still being close by to perform a required task” [Samdaria; Col: 4, Lines: 43-55].
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney in view of Nordbruch and TANIGUCHI (United States Patent Publication 2022/0017010 A1) referenced as Taniguchi moving forward.
With respect to claim 15, Sweeney does not specifically state: “wherein the notification control portion causes the information output portion to output the light of the first color in the information output region when the movable body is operating, and the first color is a color in accordance with a mode of a movement manner set in the movable body.”
Taniguchi, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for autonomously controlling moving bodies, teaches: “wherein the notification control portion causes the information output portion to output the light of the first color in the information output region when the movable body is operating, and the first color is a color in accordance with a mode of a movement manner set in the movable body” [Taniguchi; In a least the paragraphs and figures cited, Taniguchi teaches controlling operation of rear lights (107c and 107d in Fig. 1) in accordance with a route for an autonomous vehicle (for example, the route in Fig. 3), in which Taniguchi teaches: 1) displaying rear light pattern 231 (231 in Fig. 7(a)) on straight section 193, transitioning light pattern 231 to light pattern 233 to indicate the right turns at the right turn positions (denoted C in Fig. 3) and subsequently returning to displaying rear light pattern 231 on straight section 194, wherein rear light pattern 231 has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "first color;" Fig. 1, 3, 7; ¶: 0048, 0053, 0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays as disclosed by Sweeney to incorporate the teachings regarding changing the color of an external display based on whether the vehicle is driving straight or navigating a turn as taught by Taniguchi with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays that is more robust in its ability to mitigate interference between the autonomous vehicle and other moving bodies/pedestrians in the AV’s surroundings [Taniguchi; ¶: 0005, 0006, 0067, 0089].
With respect to claim 16, Sweeney does not specifically state: “wherein when the turning of the movable body is ended, the notification control portion erases the information indicating the turn direction in the information output region and causes the information output portion to output the light of the first color.”
Taniguchi teaches: “wherein when the turning of the movable body is ended, the notification control portion erases the information indicating the turn direction in the information output region and causes the information output portion to output the light of the first color” [In a least the paragraphs and figures cited, Taniguchi teaches controlling operation of rear lights (107c and 107d in Fig. 1) in accordance with a route for an autonomous vehicle (for example, the route in Fig. 3), in which Taniguchi teaches: 1) displaying rear light pattern 231 (231 in Fig. 7(a)) on straight section 193, transitioning light pattern 231 to light pattern 233 to indicate the right turns at the right turn positions (denoted C in Fig. 3) and subsequently returning to displaying rear light pattern 231 on straight section 194; Fig. 1, 3, 7; ¶: 0048, 0053, 0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays as disclosed by Sweeney to incorporate the teachings regarding changing the color of an external display based on whether the vehicle is driving straight or navigating a turn as taught by Taniguchi with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling a self-driving vehicle (SDV) to communicate with individuals in its periphery using external vehicle displays that is more robust in its ability to mitigate interference between the autonomous vehicle and other moving bodies/pedestrians in the AV’s surroundings [Taniguchi; ¶: 0005, 0006, 0067, 0089].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Levinson et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0248963 A1) discloses: Various embodiments relate generally to autonomous vehicles and associated mechanical, electrical and electronic hardware, computer software and systems, and wired and wireless network communications to provide map data for autonomous vehicles. In particular, a method may include accessing subsets of multiple types of sensor data, aligning subsets of sensor data relative to a global coordinate system based on the multiple types of sensor data to form aligned sensor data, and generating datasets of three-dimensional map data. The method further includes detecting a change in data relative to at least two datasets of the three-dimensional map data and applying the change in data to form updated three-dimensional map data. The change in data may be representative of a state change of an environment at which the sensor data is sensed. The state change of the environment may be related to the presence or absences of an object located therein.
SHIDO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0282898 A1) discloses: A display device for a movable object includes: a display unit provided such that it is visible from outside a movable object; and a controller that causes the display unit to display information indicating a status of the movable object. The controller changes a display mode of the information displayed on the display unit in accordance with variation in the status of the movable object.
Gagne et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0356094 A1) discloses: A robotic device including a plurality of light emitting modules and a processor is disclosed. The processor is configured to identify one or more machine states of the robotic device and a status of each of the one or more machine states, select at least one of the one or more machine states, determine a visual pattern corresponding to a status of the at least one selected machine state, cause the plurality of light emitting modules to output the visual pattern. The one or more machine states include one or more of the following: a navigation state, a sensor function state, a collision alert state, or an error state.
KORJUS et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0197712 A1) discloses: A mobile robot has a body having at least one item space; a lid constructed and adapted to assume at least an open position and a closed position, wherein the lid is to fit on top of the body in the closed position, so as to cover the item space, and the lid is to be lifted to the open position, so as to allow access to the item space; at least four wheels; and a plurality of light sources arranged as at least one row of lights.
Haghighat Kashani et al. (United States Patent Publication 2022/0019213 A1) discloses: Described herein is a delivery robot that can be programmed to travel from one location to another in open spaces that have few restrictions on the robot's path of travel. The delivery robot may operate in an autonomous mode, a remote controlled mode, or a combination thereof. The delivery robot can include a cargo area for transporting physical items. The robot can include exterior display devices and/or lighting devices to convey information to people that the robot may be encountering, including indications of the robot's direction of travel, current status, and/or other information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 pm.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights