DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 19/142,436 filed on 06/23/2025.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
The examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by examiner Jeffrey Chalhoub.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 23rd, 2025, December 17th, 2025, and April 30th, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“th1”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“BL2”,
“42A”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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 external-field information acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 9,
“a road-surface obstacle area estimation unit” in claims 1-3 and 9,
“an above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit” in claims 1-3 and 9,
“a travelable-area determination unit” in claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9,
“an output unit” in claims 1, 7, and 9,
“an obstacle identification unit” in claim 3,
“a traveling-prohibited area estimation unit” in claim 5,
“an under-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit” in claim 6,
“a risk-area generation unit” in claim 7.
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.
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 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “an external-field information acquisition unit adapted to acquire” in claim 1, for instance, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of acquiring “external-field information including two-dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an object existing around the vehicle, from the external-field sensor incorporated in the vehicle. Namely, the external-field information acquisition unit 421 acquires external-field information recognized by the external-field information recognition unit 41”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to acquire. The use of “external-field information including two-dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an object existing around the vehicle, from the external-field sensor incorporated in the vehicle. Namely, the external-field information acquisition unit 421 acquires external-field information recognized by the external-field information recognition unit 41” is not adequate structure for performing the acquiring function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a road-surface obstacle area estimation unit adapted to recognize” in claim 1, for instance, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of recognizing “a road-surface obstacle existing on the traveling road surface of the traveling road on which the vehicle is travelling, based on the external-field information. Further, the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit (the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 422) estimates a road-surface obstacle area. Here, the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit (the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 422) acquires the position of the road- surface obstacle and estimates the road-surface obstacle area”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to recognize. The use of “a road-surface obstacle existing on the traveling road surface of the traveling road on which the vehicle is travelling, based on the external-field information. Further, the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit (the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 422) estimates a road-surface obstacle area. Here, the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit (the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 422) acquires the position of the road- surface obstacle and estimates the road-surface obstacle area” is not adequate structure for performing the recognizing function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit adapted to recognize” in claim 1, for instance, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of recognizing “an above-road-surface obstacle being apart from the traveling road surface and existing above the road surface, based on the external-field information, and estimates an above-road-surface obstacle area. Here, the above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit (the above- road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 423) estimates the above-road-surface obstacle area, based on information about the position and height of the above-road-surface obstacle”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to recognize. The use of “an above-road-surface obstacle being apart from the traveling road surface and existing above the road surface, based on the external-field information, and estimates an above-road-surface obstacle area. Here, the above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit (the above- road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 423) estimates the above-road-surface obstacle area, based on information about the position and height of the above-road-surface obstacle” is not adequate structure for performing the recognizing function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a travelable-area determination unit adapted to determine” in claim 1, for instance, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of determining “a travelable area where the vehicle can travel, based on the road-surface obstacle area and the above-road-surface obstacle area. Here, the travelable-area determination unit (the travelable-area determination unit 424) determines, as the travelable area, an area obtained by excluding the road- surface obstacle area and the above-road-surface obstacle area from the initial travelable area detected by the external-field sensor. Further, the travelable-area determination unit (the travelable-area determination unit 424) assigns, as a travelable area, an area which the vehicle can pass over or the vehicle can enter, in the road-surface obstacle area, based on at least one of the traveling state of the vehicle and the height information about the road-surface obstacle”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to determine. The use of “a travelable area where the vehicle can travel, based on the road-surface obstacle area and the above-road-surface obstacle area. Here, the travelable-area determination unit (the travelable-area determination unit 424) determines, as the travelable area, an area obtained by excluding the road- surface obstacle area and the above-road-surface obstacle area from the initial travelable area detected by the external-field sensor. Further, the travelable-area determination unit (the travelable-area determination unit 424) assigns, as a travelable area, an area which the vehicle can pass over or the vehicle can enter, in the road-surface obstacle area, based on at least one of the traveling state of the vehicle and the height information about the road-surface obstacle” is not adequate structure for performing the determining function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an output unit adapted to output” in claim 1, for instance, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of outputting “information about the travelable area to the vehicle control device for controlling behaviors of the vehicle. Here, the output unit 425 outputs information about the travelable area determined by the travelable-area determination unit 424 to the risk-area generation unit 43”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to output. The use of “information about the travelable area to the vehicle control device for controlling behaviors of the vehicle. Here, the output unit 425 outputs information about the travelable area determined by the travelable-area determination unit 424 to the risk-area generation unit 43” is not adequate structure for performing the outputting function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an obstacle identification unit adapted to output” in claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of outputting “the result of obstacle identification for identifying the type or the material of a portion identified as a road-surface obstacle or an above- road-surface obstacle, based on external-field information. For coping therewith, the obstacle identification unit 426 has learning data obtained by preliminarily learning about the types or materials of structures of respective types. Upon receiving the external-field information acquired by the external-field information acquisition unit 421, the obstacle identification unit 426 acquires the result of detection of an obstacle such as a structure in a travelable area, from the external-field sensors 2 (for example, the camera sensor), and identifies the type or material of the obstacle, using learning data. Examples of "type" include a curbstone and a bar in a parking lot. Examples of "material" include a concrete forming a curbstone, a rubber material covering a bar for preventing a car from being damaged even when coming into contact therewith, or the like. Further, the obstacle identification unit 426 may be adapted to acquire results of identifications of the types of various structures by the environment recognition device 4 in another vehicle, through the V2X device 25 illustrated in FIG. 2, thereby improving the accuracy of identification of the type of a similar structure when the own vehicle is travelling on a travelling road on which the similar structure exists”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to output. The use of “the result of obstacle identification for identifying the type or the material of a portion identified as a road-surface obstacle or an above- road-surface obstacle, based on external-field information. For coping therewith, the obstacle identification unit 426 has learning data obtained by preliminarily learning about the types or materials of structures of respective types. Upon receiving the external-field information acquired by the external-field information acquisition unit 421, the obstacle identification unit 426 acquires the result of detection of an obstacle such as a structure in a travelable area, from the external-field sensors 2 (for example, the camera sensor), and identifies the type or material of the obstacle, using learning data. Examples of "type" include a curbstone and a bar in a parking lot. Examples of "material" include a concrete forming a curbstone, a rubber material covering a bar for preventing a car from being damaged even when coming into contact therewith, or the like. Further, the obstacle identification unit 426 may be adapted to acquire results of identifications of the types of various structures by the environment recognition device 4 in another vehicle, through the V2X device 25 illustrated in FIG. 2, thereby improving the accuracy of identification of the type of a similar structure when the own vehicle is travelling on a travelling road on which the similar structure exists” is not adequate structure for performing the outputting function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a traveling-prohibited area estimation unit adapted to estimate” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of estimating “a travelling-prohibited area where vehicles are prohibited from traveling, based on a sign or a marking on the travelling road on which the vehicle is travelling. For example, by acquiring map information from the map- information provision device 3, the traveling-prohibited area estimation unit 427 can estimate a travelling- prohibited area, with respect to external-field information acquired by the external-field information acquisition unit 421”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to estimate. The use of “a travelling-prohibited area where vehicles are prohibited from traveling, based on a sign or a marking on the travelling road on which the vehicle is travelling. For example, by acquiring map information from the map- information provision device 3, the traveling-prohibited area estimation unit 427 can estimate a travelling- prohibited area, with respect to external-field information acquired by the external-field information acquisition unit 421” is not adequate structure for performing the estimating function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “an under-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit adapted to recognize” in claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of recognizing “an under-road-surface obstacle existing under the travelling road surface and the road surface around the travelling road, based on external-field information, and estimates an under-road-surface obstacle area. For example, the under-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 428 has a function of recognizing an object with a height less than a certain height, which is installed on the traveling road surface, as an under-road-surface obstacle. For example, when a falling object or the like having a height of 50 cm or less exists on the traveling road surface, the own vehicle needs to stop before the falling object or to travel by avoiding the falling object. For coping therewith, the under-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 428 generates an under-road-surface obstacle area, which enables the travelable-area determination unit 424 to determine an area excluding the under-road-surface obstacle area, as a travelable area”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to recognize. The use of “an under-road-surface obstacle existing under the travelling road surface and the road surface around the travelling road, based on external-field information, and estimates an under-road-surface obstacle area. For example, the under-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 428 has a function of recognizing an object with a height less than a certain height, which is installed on the traveling road surface, as an under-road-surface obstacle. For example, when a falling object or the like having a height of 50 cm or less exists on the traveling road surface, the own vehicle needs to stop before the falling object or to travel by avoiding the falling object. For coping therewith, the under-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit 428 generates an under-road-surface obstacle area, which enables the travelable-area determination unit 424 to determine an area excluding the under-road-surface obstacle area, as a travelable area” is not adequate structure for performing the recognizing function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “a risk-area generation unit adapted to generate” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of generating “as risk areas, area information about risks indicating travelling danger degrees of surroundings of the vehicle, based on the travelable area outputted from the output unit (the output unit 425), and external-field information. Further, the risk-area generation unit (the risk-area generation unit 43) superimposes the risk areas on the travelable area. For example, the risk-area generation unit 43 generates, as risk areas, area information about risks indicating travelling danger degrees of surroundings of the own vehicle, based on the travelable area outputted from the output unit 425, and information about objects detected by the external-field sensor 2. Here, the risk-area generation unit 43 may consider the places other than the travelable area, as risk areas. In addition, as such risks, there are clearly- imaginable risks around objects around the own vehicle, risks in invisible portions at blind spots around objects, and the like, and, further, there are risks in roadside zones and opposite lanes. Therefore, the risk-area generation unit 43 may set stepwise risk values for respective risk areas”. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to generate. The use of “as risk areas, area information about risks indicating travelling danger degrees of surroundings of the vehicle, based on the travelable area outputted from the output unit (the output unit 425), and external-field information. Further, the risk-area generation unit (the risk-area generation unit 43) superimposes the risk areas on the travelable area. For example, the risk-area generation unit 43 generates, as risk areas, area information about risks indicating travelling danger degrees of surroundings of the own vehicle, based on the travelable area outputted from the output unit 425, and information about objects detected by the external-field sensor 2. Here, the risk-area generation unit 43 may consider the places other than the travelable area, as risk areas. In addition, as such risks, there are clearly- imaginable risks around objects around the own vehicle, risks in invisible portions at blind spots around objects, and the like, and, further, there are risks in roadside zones and opposite lanes. Therefore, the risk-area generation unit 43 may set stepwise risk values for respective risk areas” is not adequate structure for performing the generating function because it does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As the Applicant has invoked 112(f) properly but the specification does not provide a clear linking statement as to what the structural equivalents are, the Applicant’s claim limitations will be afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of, for example, acquiring external-field information including two- dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an object existing around a vehicle, recognizing a road-surface obstacle existing on a traveling road surface of a traveling road on which the vehicle is travelling, recognizing an above-road-surface obstacle being apart from the traveling road surface and existing above a road surface, determining a travelable area where the vehicle can travel, outputting information about the travelable area to a vehicle control device adapted to control a behavior of the vehicle, outputting a result of obstacle identification for identifying a type or a material of a portion identified as the road-surface obstacle or the above-road-surface obstacle, estimating a travelling-prohibited area where the vehicle is prohibited from travelling, recognizing an under-road-surface obstacle existing under the traveling road surface and a road surface around the travelling road, and generating, as a risk area, area information about a risk indicating a travelling danger degree of a surrounding of the vehicle in claims 1, 3, and 5-7. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 is directed towards an environment recognition device (machine). Dependent claims 2-7 are also directed towards an environment recognition device (machine). Claim 8 is directed towards a travelable-area determination method (process). Finally, claim 9 is directed towards an electronic control device (machine).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Taking into account claim 8 as one example, the claim recites acquiring external-field information including two- dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an object existing around a vehicle, from an external- field sensor incorporated in the vehicle, recognizing a road-surface obstacle existing on a traveling road surface of a traveling road on which the vehicle is travelling, based on the external-field information, and estimating a road-surface obstacle area, recognizing an above-road-surface obstacle being apart from the traveling road surface and existing above a road surface, based on the external-field information, and estimating an above-road-surface obstacle area, determining a travelable area where the vehicle can travel, based on the road-surface obstacle area and the above-road-surface obstacle area, and outputting information about the travelable area to a vehicle control device adapted to control a behavior of the vehicle. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses an individual analyzing a path and its environmental surroundings, reporting the path’s characteristics and environmental surroundings including obstacles and/or other entities to a driver of a vehicle traversing the path, and providing driving instructions to the vehicle to traverse the path in order to avoid any potential collision with the obstacles/entities. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. Claims 1 and 9 recite seven additional elements – an external-field information acquisition unit, an external-field sensor, a road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, an above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, a travelable-area determination unit, an output unit, and a vehicle control device. All seven elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic external-field information acquisition unit, external-field sensor, road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, travelable-area determination unit, output unit, and vehicle control device. Accordingly, the 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.
Claim 8 recites two additional elements – an external-field sensor and a vehicle control device. Both elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic external-field sensor and vehicle control device. Accordingly, the 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.
This type of abstract idea recited in claims 1-9 is a mental process.
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. Regarding claims 1 and 9, the claims 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 elements of using an external-field information acquisition unit, an external-field sensor, a road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, an above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, a travelable-area determination unit, an output unit, and a vehicle control device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic external-field information acquisition unit, external-field sensor, road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, travelable-area determination unit, output unit, and vehicle control device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using an external-field information acquisition unit, an external-field sensor, a road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, an above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit, a travelable-area determination unit, an output unit, and a vehicle control device cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 8, the claim does 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 elements of using an external-field sensor and a vehicle control device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic external-field sensor and vehicle control device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using an external-field sensor and a vehicle control device cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing field of use limitations on transmitting and receiving data and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-7 are merely field of use limitations which simply further limit the abstract idea set forth in claim 1. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
For example, dependent claim 2 merely recites the well understood, routine and conventional computing functions of data transmission and gathering. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umizu (JP 2016201019 A) in view of Katsuki (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0364060 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Umizu teaches:
An environment recognition device comprising:, (“the autonomous traveling device 10 according to the present invention includes a surrounding information detection sensor 19 for detecting a surrounding object.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
a road-surface obstacle area estimation unit adapted to recognize a road-surface obstacle existing on a traveling road surface of a traveling road on which the vehicle is travelling, based on the external-field information, and to estimate a road-surface obstacle area; an above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit adapted to recognize an above-road-surface obstacle being apart from the traveling road surface and existing above a road surface, based on the external-field information, and to estimate an above-road-surface obstacle area;, (“In view of such circumstances, the present invention is an autonomous traveling device capable of detecting whether a road surface is tilted or an obstacle based on peripheral information related to a distance to a surrounding target area and determining whether or not the vehicle can travel. […] FIG. 6 is an XY space diagram when a plurality of road surface areas and a course space area are set.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
a travelable-area determination unit adapted to determine a travelable area where the vehicle can travel, based on the road-surface obstacle area and the above-road- surface obstacle area; and an output unit adapted to output information about the travelable area to a vehicle control device adapted to control a behavior of the vehicle., (“The area setting unit 32 sets a road surface area and a course space area within the surrounding information detection range based on the surrounding information. […] When an object is detected, it is determined as an obstacle 57.” (Umizu: Descripiton) Umizu further mentions “The area setting unit 32 dynamically sets each area of the road surface area and the course space area based on the peripheral information and the traveling direction. […] Thus, since the propriety of advancing is determined based on a plurality of road surface areas and a course space area, a more appropriate course can be set based on a wide range.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
Umizu does not teach but Katsuki teaches:
an external-field information acquisition unit adapted to acquire external-field information including two- dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an object existing around a vehicle, from an external- field sensor incorporated in the vehicle;, (See (Katsuki: Detailed Description – 31st-38th, 64th-83rd, and 103rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu with these above aforementioned teachings from Katsuki in order to create a safe environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Katsuki’s information processing device and method, mobile object, and computer program product in order to acquire external-field information including two-dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an obstacle existing around a vehicle from an external- field sensor incorporated in the vehicle. Combining Umizu and Katsuki would thus provide a safe “information processing device, a mobile object, an information processing method, and a computer program product.” (Katsuki: Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 7:
Umizu in view of Katsuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Umizu does not teach but Katsuki teaches:
The environment recognition device according to claim 2, further comprising a risk-area generation unit adapted to generate, as a risk area, area information about a risk indicating a travelling danger degree of a surrounding of the vehicle, based on the travelable area outputted from the output unit, and the external-field information, and to superimpose the risk area on the travelable area., (See (Katsuki: Detailed Description – 86th-87th and 103rd-104th paragraphs, FIG. 7A-8B))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu with these above aforementioned teachings from Katsuki in order to create a safe environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Katsuki’s information processing device and method, mobile object, and computer program product in order to acquire external-field information including two-dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an obstacle existing around a vehicle from an external- field sensor incorporated in the vehicle. Combining Umizu and Katsuki would thus provide a safe “information processing device, a mobile object, an information processing method, and a computer program product.” (Katsuki: Field – 2nd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 8:
Umizu teaches:
A travelable-area determination method comprising the steps of:, (“It is an object of the present invention to provide a travel control method and a travel control program for a travel device.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
recognizing a road-surface obstacle existing on a traveling road surface of a traveling road on which the vehicle is travelling, based on the external-field information, and estimating a road-surface obstacle area; recognizing an above-road-surface obstacle being apart from the traveling road surface and existing above a road surface, based on the external-field information, and estimating an above-road-surface obstacle area;, (“In view of such circumstances, the present invention is an autonomous traveling device capable of detecting whether a road surface is tilted or an obstacle based on peripheral information related to a distance to a surrounding target area and determining whether or not the vehicle can travel. […] FIG. 6 is an XY space diagram when a plurality of road surface areas and a course space area are set.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
determining a travelable area where the vehicle can travel, based on the road-surface obstacle area and the above-road-surface obstacle area; and outputting information about the travelable area to a vehicle control device adapted to control a behavior of the vehicle., (“The area setting unit 32 sets a road surface area and a course space area within the surrounding information detection range based on the surrounding information. […] When an object is detected, it is determined as an obstacle 57.” (Umizu: Descripiton) Umizu further mentions “The area setting unit 32 dynamically sets each area of the road surface area and the course space area based on the peripheral information and the traveling direction. […] Thus, since the propriety of advancing is determined based on a plurality of road surface areas and a course space area, a more appropriate course can be set based on a wide range.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
Umizu does not teach but Katsuki teaches:
acquiring external-field information including two- dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an object existing around a vehicle, from an external- field sensor incorporated in the vehicle;, (See (Katsuki: Detailed Description – 31st-38th, 64th-83rd, and 103rd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu with these above aforementioned teachings from Katsuki in order to create a safe environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Katsuki’s information processing device and method, mobile object, and computer program product in order to acquire external-field information including two-dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an obstacle existing around a vehicle from an external- field sensor incorporated in the vehicle. Combining Umizu and Katsuki would thus provide a safe “information processing device, a mobile object, an information processing method, and a computer program product.” (Katsuki: Field – 2nd paragraph)
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umizu (JP 2016201019 A) in view of Katsuki (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0364060 A1) in further view of Oguro (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0284789 A1) in even further view of Mori (JP 2007047034 A).
Regarding Claim 2:
Umizu in view of Katsuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Umizu further teaches:
The environment recognition device according to claim 1, wherein the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit acquires a position of the road-surface obstacle and estimates the road-surface obstacle area,, (“The obstacle determination unit 34 determines whether an obstacle that is an obstacle to travel is included based on the peripheral information of the region set as the course space region by the region setting unit 32. […] Avoid beforehand (step S18).” (Umizu: Descripiton) Umizu further mentions “An example of the obstacle detection method using the surrounding information of the course space area is shown. […] When an object is detected, it is determined as an obstacle 57.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
[…] and the travelable-area determination unit determines, as the travelable area, an area obtained […], (“The area setting unit 32 sets a road surface area and a course space area within the surrounding information detection range based on the surrounding information. […] When an object is detected, it is determined as an obstacle 57.” (Umizu: Descripiton) Umizu further mentions “The area setting unit 32 dynamically sets each area of the road surface area and the course space area based on the peripheral information and the traveling direction. […] Thus, since the propriety of advancing is determined based on a plurality of road surface areas and a course space area, a more appropriate course can be set based on a wide range.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
Umizu in view of Katsuki does not teach but Oguro teaches:
[…] the above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit estimates the above-road- surface obstacle area, based on information about a position and a height of the above-road- surface obstacle, […], (See (Oguro: Detailed Description of the Invention – 38th-40th and 70th-76th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu in view of Katsuki with these above aforementioned teachings from Oguro in order to create an effective environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Oguro’s vehicle control system, method, and program in order to identify a type, height, and position of an obstacle existing around a vehicle. Combining Umizu and Oguro would thus provide “a vehicle control system, a vehicle control method, and a vehicle control program that are capable of further improving safety.” (Oguro: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph)
Umizu in view of Katsuki in further view of Oguro does not teach but Mori teaches:
[…] by excluding the road- surface obstacle area and the above-road-surface obstacle area from an initial travelable area detected by the external-field sensor., (“Further, in one embodiment of the present invention, when a road closure is predicted by the safety degree determination unit and a bypass route reaching the destination is not searched by the bypass route search unit, the bypass route is not searched. The fact is notified to the driver. […] Is predicted, and when the detour route reaching the destination is not searched by the detour route searching means, the driver is informed that there may be a situation where it cannot return from the destination.” (Mori: Descripiton) Mori further mentions “In the present embodiment, when a reduced safety location is detected, the route information providing device 17 searches for a route that bypasses the reduced safety location. […] Note that the link from the node N1 to the node N3 may be excluded from the searched route so that the route that travels through the reduced safety point is not searched.” (Mori: Descripiton) Mori further states “In a present Example, when the route which detours a safety | security fall location cannot be searched in this way, the fact which concerns is notified before a departure, and the judgment material whether to go to the destination Pe is provided to a driver | operator. […] Judgment can be made at an early stage, such as cancellation or postponement of departure.” (Mori: Descripiton))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu in view of Katsuki in further view of Oguro with these above aforementioned teachings from Mori in order to create an efficient environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Mori’s route information providing device in order to exclude certain travel areas from potential vehicle trajectories. Combining Umizu and Mori would thus provide “a route information providing apparatus capable of setting a route to a destination in consideration of the possibility of traffic closure and the like.” (Mori: Description)
Regarding Claim 6:
Umizu in view of Katsuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Umizu further teaches:
[…] wherein the travelable-area determination unit determines, as the travelable area, an area obtained […], (“The area setting unit 32 sets a road surface area and a course space area within the surrounding information detection range based on the surrounding information. […] When an object is detected, it is determined as an obstacle 57.” (Umizu: Descripiton) Umizu further mentions “The area setting unit 32 dynamically sets each area of the road surface area and the course space area based on the peripheral information and the traveling direction. […] Thus, since the propriety of advancing is determined based on a plurality of road surface areas and a course space area, a more appropriate course can be set based on a wide range.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
Umizu in view of Katsuki does not teach but Oguro teaches:
The environment recognition device according to claim 4, further comprising an under-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit adapted to recognize an under-road-surface obstacle existing under the traveling road surface and a road surface around the travelling road and to estimate an under-road-surface obstacle area,, (See (Oguro: Summary of the Invention – 14th and 22nd-23rd paragraphs and Detailed Description of the Invention – 70th-72nd, 78th, and 82nd-86th paragraphs, FIG. 6-7))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu in view of Katsuki with these above aforementioned teachings from Oguro in order to create an effective environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Oguro’s vehicle control system, method, and program in order to identify a type, height, and position of an obstacle existing around a vehicle. Combining Umizu and Oguro would thus provide “a vehicle control system, a vehicle control method, and a vehicle control program that are capable of further improving safety.” (Oguro: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph)
Umizu in view of Katsuki in further view of Oguro does not teach but Mori teaches:
[…] by excluding the under-road-surface obstacle area from the initial travelable area., (“Further, in one embodiment of the present invention, when a road closure is predicted by the safety degree determination unit and a bypass route reaching the destination is not searched by the bypass route search unit, the bypass route is not searched. The fact is notified to the driver. […] Is predicted, and when the detour route reaching the destination is not searched by the detour route searching means, the driver is informed that there may be a situation where it cannot return from the destination.” (Mori: Descripiton) Mori further mentions “In the present embodiment, when a reduced safety location is detected, the route information providing device 17 searches for a route that bypasses the reduced safety location. […] Note that the link from the node N1 to the node N3 may be excluded from the searched route so that the route that travels through the reduced safety point is not searched.” (Mori: Descripiton) Mori further states “In a present Example, when the route which detours a safety | security fall location cannot be searched in this way, the fact which concerns is notified before a departure, and the judgment material whether to go to the destination Pe is provided to a driver | operator. […] Judgment can be made at an early stage, such as cancellation or postponement of departure.” (Mori: Descripiton))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu in view of Katsuki in further view of Oguro with these above aforementioned teachings from Mori in order to create an efficient environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Mori’s route information providing device in order to exclude certain travel areas from potential vehicle trajectories. Combining Umizu and Mori would thus provide “a route information providing apparatus capable of setting a route to a destination in consideration of the possibility of traffic closure and the like.” (Mori: Description)
Claims 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umizu (JP 2016201019 A) in view of Katsuki (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0364060 A1) in further view of Oguro (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0284789 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Umizu in view of Katsuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 2. Umizu further teaches:
[…] the road-surface obstacle area estimation unit estimates the road-surface obstacle area, based on the result of the obstacle identification, and the above-road-surface obstacle area estimation unit estimates the above-road-surface obstacle area, based on the result of the obstacle identification., (“In view of such circumstances, the present invention is an autonomous traveling device capable of detecting whether a road surface is tilted or an obstacle based on peripheral information related to a distance to a surrounding target area and determining whether or not the vehicle can travel. […] FIG. 6 is an XY space diagram when a plurality of road surface areas and a course space area are set.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
Umizu in view of Katsuki does not teach but Oguro teaches:
The environment recognition device according to claim 2, further comprising an obstacle identification unit adapted to output a result of obstacle identification for identifying a type or a material of a portion identified as the road-surface obstacle or the above-road-surface obstacle, based on the external-field information,, (See (Oguro: Detailed Description of the Invention – 73rd-80th and 91st-95th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu in view of Katsuki with these above aforementioned teachings from Oguro in order to create an effective environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Oguro’s vehicle control system, method, and program in order to identify a type, height, and position of an obstacle existing around a vehicle. Combining Umizu and Oguro would thus provide “a vehicle control system, a vehicle control method, and a vehicle control program that are capable of further improving safety.” (Oguro: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 4:
Umizu in view of Katsuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 3. Umizu further teaches:
The environment recognition device according to claim 3, wherein the travelable-area determination unit assigns, as the travelable area, an area that the vehicle can pass over or the vehicle can enter, in the road-surface obstacle area,, (“The area setting unit 32 sets a road surface area and a course space area within the surrounding information detection range based on the surrounding information. […] When an object is detected, it is determined as an obstacle 57.” (Umizu: Descripiton) Umizu further mentions “The area setting unit 32 dynamically sets each area of the road surface area and the course space area based on the peripheral information and the traveling direction. […] Thus, since the propriety of advancing is determined based on a plurality of road surface areas and a course space area, a more appropriate course can be set based on a wide range.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
Umizu in view of Katsuki does not teach but Oguro teaches:
[…] based on at least one of the traveling state of the vehicle, information about a height of the road-surface obstacle, and the result of the obstacle identification., (See (Oguro: Detailed Description of the Invention – 73rd-80th and 91st-95th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu in view of Katsuki with these above aforementioned teachings from Oguro in order to create an effective environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Oguro’s vehicle control system, method, and program in order to identify a type, height, and position of an obstacle existing around a vehicle. Combining Umizu and Oguro would thus provide “a vehicle control system, a vehicle control method, and a vehicle control program that are capable of further improving safety.” (Oguro: Summary of the Invention – 5th paragraph)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umizu (JP 2016201019 A) in view of Katsuki (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0364060 A1) in further view of Mori (JP 2007047034 A).
Regarding Claim 5:
Umizu in view of Katsuki, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Umizu further teaches:
[…] wherein the travelable-area determination unit determines, as the travelable area, an area obtained […], (“The area setting unit 32 sets a road surface area and a course space area within the surrounding information detection range based on the surrounding information. […] When an object is detected, it is determined as an obstacle 57.” (Umizu: Descripiton) Umizu further mentions “The area setting unit 32 dynamically sets each area of the road surface area and the course space area based on the peripheral information and the traveling direction. […] Thus, since the propriety of advancing is determined based on a plurality of road surface areas and a course space area, a more appropriate course can be set based on a wide range.” (Umizu: Descripiton))
Umizu does not teach but Katsuki teaches:
The environment recognition device according to claim 4, further comprising a traveling-prohibited area estimation unit adapted to estimate a travelling-prohibited area where the vehicle is prohibited from travelling, based on a sign or a marking on the travelling road on which the vehicle is travelling,, (See (Katsuki: Detailed Description – 75th paragraph))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu with these above aforementioned teachings from Katsuki in order to create a safe environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Katsuki’s information processing device and method, mobile object, and computer program product in order to acquire external-field information including two-dimensional information or three-dimensional information about an obstacle existing around a vehicle from an external- field sensor incorporated in the vehicle. Combining Umizu and Katsuki would thus provide a safe “information processing device, a mobile object, an information processing method, and a computer program product.” (Katsuki: Field – 2nd paragraph)
Umizu in view of Katsuki does not teach but Mori teaches:
[…] by excluding the traveling-prohibited area from the initial travelable area., (“Further, in one embodiment of the present invention, when a road closure is predicted by the safety degree determination unit and a bypass route reaching the destination is not searched by the bypass route search unit, the bypass route is not searched. The fact is notified to the driver. […] Is predicted, and when the detour route reaching the destination is not searched by the detour route searching means, the driver is informed that there may be a situation where it cannot return from the destination.” (Mori: Descripiton) Mori further mentions “In the present embodiment, when a reduced safety location is detected, the route information providing device 17 searches for a route that bypasses the reduced safety location. […] Note that the link from the node N1 to the node N3 may be excluded from the searched route so that the route that travels through the reduced safety point is not searched.” (Mori: Descripiton) Mori further states “In a present Example, when the route which detours a safety | security fall location cannot be searched in this way, the fact which concerns is notified before a departure, and the judgment material whether to go to the destination Pe is provided to a driver | operator. […] Judgment can be made at an early stage, such as cancellation or postponement of departure.” (Mori: Descripiton))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Umizu in view of Katsuki with these above aforementioned teachings from Mori in order to create an efficient environment recognition device, travelable-area determination method, and electronic control device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Umizu’s autonomous traveling device, traveling control method, and traveling control program with Mori’s route information providing device in order to exclude certain travel areas from potential vehicle trajectories. Combining Umizu and Mori would thus provide “a route information providing apparatus capable of setting a route to a destination in consideration of the possibility of traffic closure and the like.” (Mori: Description)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights