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 reply to the Application Number 19/162,092 filed on 09/04/2025. This is also a first action on the merits.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 09/04/2025 and 12/24/2025 have been received and considered.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections for claims 1 – 9 and 12 – 20. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
detect a first vehicle on a road;
identify a movement of a second vehicle coming from behind the first vehicle [mental process/step] from an image captured by a camera capable of imaging the road;
calculate a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle has overtaken the first vehicle; [mental process/step] and
output information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle to a predetermined output destination.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identify…” and “calculate…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
detect a first vehicle on a road; [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
identify a movement of a second vehicle coming from behind the first vehicle [mental process/step] from an image captured by a camera capable of imaging the road; [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]
calculate a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle has overtaken the first vehicle; [mental process/step] and
output information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle to a predetermined output destination. [insignificant post-solution activity]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detect…”, “from an image…” and “output…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (information processing apparatus) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the camera is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The output information step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending a result from the evaluating step) and amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, a “information processing apparatus” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an information processing apparatus to perform the identifying and calculating amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detect…”, “from an image…” and “output…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 9 and 12 – 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 2 states: “The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the processor identifies the movement of the second vehicle coming from behind the first vehicle from an image captured after the image in which the first vehicle is detected.”, which is merely acquiring an image and using the information processing apparatus (a generic computer) to perform the mental process of identifying the movement of a second vehicle.
Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 9 and 12 – 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis of claims 10 and 11 is stated below.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory recording medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A non-transitory recording medium that stores a program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising:
detecting a first vehicle on a road;
processing of identifying a movement of a second vehicle coming from behind the first vehicle [mental process/step] from an image captured by a camera capable of imaging the road;
processing of calculating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle has overtaken the first vehicle; [mental process/step] and
processing of outputting information indicating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle to a predetermined output destination.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identifying…” and “calculating…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A non-transitory recording medium that stores a program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
detecting a first vehicle on a road; [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
processing of identifying a movement of a second vehicle coming from behind the first vehicle [mental process/step] from an image captured by a camera capable of imaging the road; [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors]
processing of calculating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle has overtaken the first vehicle; [mental process/step] and
processing of outputting information indicating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle to a predetermined output destination. [insignificant post-solution activity]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting…”, “from an image…” and “outputting…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (information processing apparatus) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the camera is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The output information step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending a result from the evaluating step) and amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, a “non-transitory recording medium that stores a program” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a non-transitory recording medium that stores a program to perform the identifying and calculating amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “detecting…”, “from an image…” and “outputting…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Solar et al. (US 20220105941 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Solar teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to: (Solar: Claim 1: “A vehicular control system, the vehicular control system comprising: a camera disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular control system and viewing at least forward of the vehicle, the camera capturing image data; wherein the camera comprises a CMOS imaging array, and wherein the CMOS imaging array comprises at least one million photosensors arranged in rows and columns; an electronic control unit (ECU) comprising electronic circuitry and associated software; wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises an image processor for processing image data captured by the camera to detect presence of an object viewed by the camera; wherein the vehicular control system”; Paragraph 0027: “The system may also communicate with other systems, such as via a vehicle-to-vehicle communication system or a vehicle-to-infrastructure communication system or the like. Such car2car or vehicle to vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (car2X or V2X or V2I or a 4G or 5G broadband cellular network) technology provides for communication between vehicles and/or infrastructure based on information provided by one or more vehicles and/or information provided by a remote server or the like.”)
detect a first vehicle on a road; (Solar: Paragraph 0015: “The system may provide information on the oncoming road objects with V2V communication. Based on one or more forward-facing sensors (e.g. radar, one or more cameras, lidar, etc.),”)
identify a movement of a second vehicle coming from behind the first vehicle from an image captured by a camera capable of imaging the road; (Solar: Paragraph 0019: “That is, the leading vehicle may communicate to the overtaking vehicle that an overtake is sufficiently safe and subsequently the trailing vehicle may present an overtaking option (e.g., via a display) the option to overtake the leading vehicle. The overtaking vehicle 22 may only indicate that overtaking is safe when, for example sufficient distance exists between the leading vehicle 24 and a preceding vehicle 28.”; Paragraph 0020: “Referring now to FIG. 3, responsive to receiving the indication that overtaking is safe, the overtaking vehicle 22 moves into a neighboring lane using, for example, an automatic lane change assistance function and obtains a view of the road ahead of the leading vehicle 24. Optionally, the indication that overtaking is safe may only be provided when any oncoming objects 30 are at a sufficient distance from the leading vehicle 24 based on the speed of the leading vehicle 24 and/or the speed of the oncoming object 30.”,
Supplemental Note: the overtaking vehicle is able to use its vehicle camera to determine its movement and if it is able to overtake the leading vehicle)
calculate a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle has overtaken the first vehicle; and (Solar: Paragraph 0020: “Here, the leading vehicle 24 determines that the oncoming object (i.e., oncoming vehicle 30) is a sufficient distance away from the leading vehicle 24 at its current speed to not impact the safety of the overtaking maneuver. Similarly, the preceding vehicle 28 here may provide an indication 26 that overtaking is safe or not safe due to the proximity and approach speed of the oncoming object 30.”; Paragraph 0024: “the overtaking vehicle 22 executes the trajectory of the safest overtake destination. That is, the system operates the steering, acceleration, and braking of the vehicle to overtake the leading vehicle 24 and follow the selected trajectory to arrive at the selected destination ahead of the leading vehicle 24. While overtaking, the leading vehicle 24 may continue to monitor and maintain the space ahead for the overtaking vehicle to enter.”,
Supplemental Note: determining the safest overtake destination and an indication that overtaking is safe or not of the preceding vehicle are equivalent to calculating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (equivalent to the cited leading vehicle))
output information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle to a predetermined output destination (Solar: Paragraph 0021: “This may provide redundant information already provided by leading vehicle 24 to provide additional safety. The system determines one or more potential destinations of the overtake maneuver, the trajectory necessary to arrive at each destination, and a safety determination of each trajectory. Here, the system determines three potential destinations, 32a, 32b, 32c ahead of the leading vehicle 24. The number of potential destinations may be dependent upon the amount of available space ahead of the leading vehicle 24, a size of the overtaking vehicle 22, and/or a speed of the vehicles and/or relative speed of the overtaking vehicle relative to the vehicle being overtaken and passed.”; Paragraph 0025: “Thus, the vehicular vision system or driver assist system provides safe overtaking maneuvering by receiving a visual and/or wireless communication from a leading vehicle regarding a level of safety of an overtaking maneuver. When the leading vehicle indicates, based on sensor data regarding objects in front of the leading vehicle, that overtaking is safe, the equipped vehicle autonomously initiates an overtaking maneuver. The overtaking vehicle and the leading vehicle may communicate via visual indications and/or via V2V communication. The leading vehicle may provide the overtaking vehicle with information regarding objects detected in front of the overtaking vehicle. The overtaking vehicle, during the overtaking maneuver may determine a plurality of potential destinations and select the destination that is the safest.”,
Supplemental Note: based on the determination of safely overtaking the leading vehicle, the host vehicle to be controlled to autonomously move in front of the leading vehicle).
Regarding claim 2, Solar teaches wherein the processor identifies the movement of the second vehicle coming from behind the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0020: “responsive to receiving the indication that overtaking is safe, the overtaking vehicle 22 moves into a neighboring lane using, for example, an automatic lane change assistance function and obtains a view of the road ahead of the leading vehicle 24. Optionally, the indication that overtaking is safe may only be provided when any oncoming objects 30 are at a sufficient distance from the leading vehicle 24 based on the speed of the leading vehicle 24 and/or the speed of the oncoming object 30. Here, the leading vehicle 24 determines that the oncoming object (i.e., oncoming vehicle 30) is a sufficient distance away from the leading vehicle 24 at its current speed to not impact the safety of the overtaking maneuver. Similarly, the preceding vehicle 28 here may provide an indication 26 that overtaking is safe or not safe due to the proximity and approach speed of the oncoming object 30.”; Paragraph 0021: “the overtaking vehicle 22 uses one or more sensors (e.g., radar, camera(s), lidar, etc.) to determine the relative position and velocities of the various road objects in front of the vehicle. This may provide redundant information already provided by leading vehicle 24 to provide additional safety. The system determines one or more potential destinations of the overtake maneuver, the trajectory necessary to arrive at each destination, and a safety determination of each trajectory.”)
from an image captured after the image in which the first vehicle is detected (Solar: Paragraph 0015: “Based on one or more forward-facing sensors (e.g. radar, one or more cameras, lidar, etc.), the leading vehicle determines the position and speed of any road objects and available space ahead of the leading vehicle and determines whether a safe overtake is possible or alternatively that an overtake would be unsafe. The leading vehicle may indicate an overtaking maneuver is safe when, for example, the leading vehicle does not detect an object (e.g., an oncoming vehicle) within a threshold distance of the leading vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 6, Solar teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle accelerates while overtaking (Solar: Paragraph 0021: “The number of potential destinations may be dependent upon the amount of available space ahead of the leading vehicle 24, a size of the overtaking vehicle 22, and/or a speed of the vehicles and/or relative speed of the overtaking vehicle relative to the vehicle being overtaken and passed. For example, when there are no other vehicles in front of the leading vehicle 24, a greater number of potential destinations may be valid as compared to when there is another vehicle in front of the leading vehicle 24.”; Paragraph 0022: “The system also determines the trajectories (i.e., the speed, the acceleration, the steering angles, etc.) necessary to arrive at each potential destination. The safety of each potential destination may be based in part on the required trajectory. For example, a trajectory that requires greater acceleration or sharper steering may be less safe than trajectories that requires less acceleration or gentler steering. The system may select the safest potential destination out of all of the potential destinations.”).
Regarding claim 10, Solar teaches an information processing method comprising:
detecting a first vehicle on a road; (Solar: Paragraph 0015)
identifying a movement of a second vehicle coming from behind the first vehicle from an image captured by a camera capable of imaging the road; (Solar: Paragraph 0019; Paragraph 0020: “,
Supplemental Note: the overtaking vehicle is able to use its vehicle camera to determine its movement and if it is able to overtake the leading vehicle)
calculating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle has overtaken the first vehicle; and (Solar: Paragraph 0020; Paragraph 0024,
Supplemental Note: determining the safest overtake destination and an indication that overtaking is safe or not of the preceding vehicle are equivalent to calculating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (equivalent to the cited leading vehicle))
outputting information indicating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle to a predetermined output destination (Solar: Paragraph 0021; Paragraph 0025,
Supplemental Note: based on the determination of safely overtaking the leading vehicle, the host vehicle to be controlled to autonomously move in front of the leading vehicle).
Regarding claim 11, Solar teaches a non-transitory recording medium that stores a program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising: (Solar: Claim 1; Paragraph 0027)
detecting a first vehicle on a road; (Solar: Paragraph 0015)
identifying a movement of a second vehicle coming from behind the first vehicle from an image captured by a camera capable of imaging the road; (Solar: Paragraph 0019; Paragraph 0020,
Supplemental Note: the overtaking vehicle is able to use its vehicle camera to determine its movement and if it is able to overtake the leading vehicle)
calculating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle has overtaken the first vehicle; and (Solar: Paragraph 0020; Paragraph 0024,
Supplemental Note: determining the safest overtake destination and an indication that overtaking is safe or not of the preceding vehicle are equivalent to calculating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (equivalent to the cited leading vehicle))
outputting information indicating a degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle to a predetermined output destination (Solar: Paragraph 0021; Paragraph 0025,
Supplemental Note: based on the determination of safely overtaking the leading vehicle, the host vehicle to be controlled to autonomously move in front of the leading vehicle).
Regarding claim 18, Solar teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle accelerates while overtaking (Solar: Paragraph 0021; Paragraph 0022).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, 12 – 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar et al. (US 20220105941 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 115892009 A).
Regarding claim 3, Solar teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015: “The system may provide information on the oncoming road objects with V2V communication. Based on one or more forward-facing sensors (e.g. radar, one or more cameras, lidar, etc.), the leading vehicle determines the position and speed of any road objects and available space ahead of the leading vehicle and determines whether a safe overtake is possible or alternatively that an overtake would be unsafe.”; Paragraph 0027: “The system may also communicate with other systems, such as via a vehicle-to-vehicle communication system or a vehicle-to-infrastructure communication system or the like. Such car2car or vehicle to vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (car2X or V2X or V2I or a 4G or 5G broadband cellular network) technology provides for communication between vehicles and/or infrastructure based on information provided by one or more vehicles and/or information provided by a remote server or the like.”).
In sum, Solar teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach a third vehicle approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle.
Zhang teaches to a third vehicle approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle (Zhang: lines 159 – 171: “According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the sensor data of all the vehicle of the fleet is transmitted to the vehicle control system of the fleet vehicle of the fleet, the vehicle control system of the team vehicle returns the processed information and/or instruction to each vehicle. The team vehicle can be any vehicle in the fleet. In this case, each vehicle in the fleet can establish a direct connection through wireless communication, after establishing the direct connection, for example, the sensor data of the adjacent front vehicle (second vehicle) in the front of the first vehicle receiving vehicle in the back, at this time, the first vehicle, especially the leader vehicle, comparing the received sensor data with the data measured by the sensor carried by the leader vehicle, so as to at least obtain the distance of the front vehicle (the second vehicle) in the fleet”,
Supplemental Note: the data from the various fleet vehicles are able to send processed information form the vehicle sensors and send instructions to one or more vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. Solar teaches the ability of determining when a vehicle can overtake a leading vehicle depending on the safety level. Solar teaches evaluating the presence of the leading vehicle and any adjacent vehicles to be used in its determination in which the vehicle can autonomously overtake the leading vehicle. Zhang teaches a similar method of overtaking a vehicle however it teaches a fleet vehicle system in which multiple vehicles can communicate with each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this addition of a fleet being able to communicate about overtaking, as taught by Zhang, as obvious to try to combine with the vehicle system of Solar. This combination leads to multiple vehicles within a fleet being able to continuously feed data to one another about roadway conditions which leads to a more accurate determination of the safety level. For example, multiple traffic data can be sent from fleet vehicle sensors and acquired map data (Zhang: lines 78 – 82), thus additional sources are evaluated to make a more accurate determination of overtaking. This data can also be sent to multiple vehicles on the fleet, thus multiple vehicles along the same route can be used to capture and send data relevant to overtaking scenarios.
Regarding claim 4, Solar teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027)
… approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0013: “An overtake is a driving maneuver when a trailing vehicle (the “overtaking vehicle”) passes another vehicle (the “overtaken vehicle” or “the leading vehicle”) travelling in front of and in the same direction as the overtaking vehicle”; Paragraph 0015: “The leading vehicle may indicate an overtaking maneuver is safe when, for example, the leading vehicle does not detect an object (e.g., an oncoming vehicle) within a threshold distance of the leading vehicle. The safeness of the overtaking maneuver may be based on an amount of the road visible in front of the leading vehicle.”).
In sum, Solar teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach a control apparatus that controls a third vehicle.
Zhang teaches to a control apparatus that controls a third vehicle (Zhang: lines 159 – 171,
Supplemental Note: the data from the various fleet vehicles are able to send processed information form the vehicle sensors and send instructions to one or more vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 3 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 7, Solar teaches calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches to calculate the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach wherein the processor acquires map information for the vicinity of the road vicinity and based on a movement of the second vehicle and the map information.
Zhang teaches wherein the processor acquires map information for the vicinity of the road vicinity and (Zhang: lines 126 – 130: “In the frame of the invention, the road condition can be obtained by means of map data pre-stored in the vehicle control system combined with the position information of the vehicle, the weather condition can be established real-time connection with the internet by means of the vehicle control system, obtaining from the weather service website. The person skilled in the art can also use other information such as road condition and weather condition to provide decision basis for the driver or vehicle control system.”)
… based on a movement of the second vehicle and (Zhang: lines 142 – 145: “In the frame of the invention, for example, the central server receives the position of the first vehicle and the second vehicle of the fleet, speed and so on information, determining the first vehicle and the second vehicle are respectively rear vehicle and front vehicle and determining the distance of the two vehicles by the information”)
the map information (Zhang: lines 126 – 130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. As stated for claim 3, Solar teaches the ability of determining when a vehicle can overtake a leading vehicle depending on the safety level. Solar teaches evaluating the presence of the leading vehicle and any adjacent vehicles to be used in its determination in which the vehicle can autonomously overtake the leading vehicle. Zhang teaches a similar method of overtaking a vehicle however it teaches a fleet vehicle system in which multiple vehicles can communicate with each other along with roadway condition data stored within a map on the system. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this addition of a fleet being able to communicate about overtaking, as taught by Zhang, as obvious to try to combine with the vehicle system of Solar. This combination leads to multiple vehicles within a fleet being able to continuously feed data to one another about roadway conditions which leads to a more accurate determination of the safety level. For example, multiple traffic data can be sent from fleet vehicle sensors and acquired map data (Zhang: lines 78 – 82), thus additional sources are evaluated to make a more accurate determination of overtaking. This data can also be sent to multiple vehicles on the fleet, thus multiple vehicles along the same route can be used to capture and send data relevant to overtaking scenarios.
Regarding claim 12, Solar teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach a third vehicle approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle.
Zhang teaches to a third vehicle approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle (Zhang: lines 159 – 171,
Supplemental Note: the data from the various fleet vehicles are able to send processed information form the vehicle sensors and send instructions to one or more vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 3 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 13, Solar teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach to a control apparatus that controls a third vehicle approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle.
Zhang teaches to a control apparatus that controls a third vehicle approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle (Zhang: lines 159 – 171,
Supplemental Note: the data from the various fleet vehicles are able to send processed information form the vehicle sensors and send instructions to one or more vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 3 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 14, Solar, as modified, teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches wherein the processor transmits information indicating the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach a control apparatus that controls a third vehicle approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle.
Zhang teaches to a control apparatus that controls a third vehicle approaching the first vehicle from behind the first vehicle (Zhang: lines 159 – 171,
Supplemental Note: the data from the various fleet vehicles are able to send processed information form the vehicle sensors and send instructions to one or more vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 3 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 19, Solar, as modified, teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle accelerates while overtaking (Solar: Paragraph 0021; Paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 20, Solar, as modified, teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle based on whether the second vehicle accelerates while overtaking (Solar: Paragraph 0021; Paragraph 0022).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar et al. (US 20220105941 A1), further in view of Mcquillen et al. (DE 102018120517 B4).
Regarding claim 5, Solar teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach based on whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the first vehicle stopped.
Mcquillen teaches based on whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the first vehicle stopped (Mcquillen: lines 320 – 324: “In some examples, the lane condition control 124 also monitors the distance traveled while the lead vehicle 206's speed is below the speed setting of vehicle 100, for example, to account for situations where vehicle 100 is stopped at a red light and/or surrounded by traffic congestion. For instance, if vehicle 100 travels a short distance (e.g., less than 1 meter) for a predetermined period while the lead vehicle's speed is below the speed setting, the lane condition control 124 determines that vehicle 100 is stopped at a red light and/or in a traffic jam. Therefore, the lane condition control 124 does not send a warning to the lead vehicle 206 and/or does not send a signal to overtake the lead vehicle 206.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of McQuillen with a reasonable expectation of success. Solar teaches the ability of determining a safety level of when to overtake a leading vehicle while the vehicles are traveling, however it is silent on overtaking a leading vehicle once a determination is made that is stopped. Solar thus does not teach how the overtaking procedures, in scenarios such as intersections or traffic jams, in which the leading vehicle may be stopped. The ability to detect a halted state of the leading vehicle as taught by McQuillen would be obvious to try to implement with the vehicle system of Solar by one of ordinary skill in the art as it improves the overtaking determination on additional scenarios not addressed by Solar but scenarios which are prevalent on the road. For example, as stated above Solar is silent on how the safety levels are determined based on the halted position of the leading vehicle. McQuillen teaches to send a signal to a host vehicle to not overtake the leading vehicle in these scenarios, which corresponds to the safety level as taught by Solar. In this example, the vehicle of Solar with the combination of McQuillen can determine the safety level to low as to not let the vehicle overtake a stopped leading vehicle as it may be at an intersection or in a traffic jam where overtaking is considered unsafe (for example running a red light by overtaking the stopped vehicle or driving on the shoulder if there is a traffic jam).
Regarding claim 15, Solar teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach based on whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the first vehicle stopped.
Mcquillen teaches based on whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the first vehicle stopped (Mcquillen: lines 320 – 324).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of McQuillen with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar et al. (US 20220105941 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 115892009 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mcquillen et al. (DE 102018120517 B4).
Regarding claim 16, Solar, as modified, teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not fully teach based on whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the first vehicle stopped.
Mcquillen teaches based on whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the first vehicle stopped (Mcquillen: lines 320 – 324).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of McQuillen with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar et al. (US 20220105941 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 115892009 A) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Mcquillen et al. (DE 102018120517 B4).
Regarding claim 17, Solar, as modified, teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches wherein the processor further calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach based on whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the first vehicle stopped.
Mcquillen teaches based on whether a predetermined period of time has elapsed since the first vehicle stopped (Mcquillen: lines 320 – 324).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of McQuillen with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 5 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar et al. (US 20220105941 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 115892009 A) and Ogata et al. (US 12380801 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Solar teaches calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches to calculate the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach based on a movement of the second vehicle.
Zhang teaches based on a movement of the second vehicle and (Zhang: lines 142 – 145).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of Zhang with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 3 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Solar in view of Zhang, however, do not teach wherein the processor acquiring light state information indicating a light state of a traffic light in front of the first vehicle.
Ogata teaches wherein the processor acquiring light state information indicating a light state of a traffic light in front of the first vehicle and (Ogata: Col. 6, lines 8 – 20: “FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of image obtained from cameras 105-1 and 105-2. The camera 105-1c at bottom right in FIG. 7 takes a shot of a vehicle entering an intersection. Using this image and control content to the traffic signal machines 111-1a to 111-1d by the signal control part 101, the vehicle may be determined, which had entered and passed through the intersection during signaling of yellow signal. In addition, a method may be also adopted, in which the traffic signal control apparatus 100 determines signaling state of the traffic signal machines 111-1a to 111-1d from images taken by the cameras 105-1a to 105-1d instead of the control content to the traffic signal machines by the signal control part 101.”,
Supplemental Note: the images from the camera can detect the light state of multiple traffic signals)
… the light state information (Ogata: Col. 6, lines 8 – 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of Ogata with a reasonable expectation of success. Ogata teaches the ability of determining a traffic signal control apparatus which can detect the number of vehicles traveling through an intersection and at which color light (red, yellow, green) they pass over. Ogata teaches this traffic signal control apparatus being able to communicate this information with external equipment (Ogata: Col. 3, lines 41 – 45). The external equipment when combined with Solar can be the vehicle itself. This combination would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art as it allows for the vehicle of Solar to also determine the state of a traffic signal when evaluating the safety level of overtaking the leading vehicle. For example, if the leading vehicle is waiting at a red light, the safety level for overtaking can be low as to not allow the host vehicle to overtake and improperly travel within the intersection when it’s not their turn. This combination mitigates these situations and in turn increases the safety of vehicles.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solar et al. (US 20220105941 A1) in view of Liang et al. (DE 102018000016 B4).
Regarding claim 9, Solar teaches wherein the processor calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle (Solar: Paragraph 0015; Paragraph 0027).
In sum, Solar teaches wherein the processor calculates the degree of possibility for safely overtaking the first vehicle. Solar however does not teach based on whether a plurality of vehicles including the second vehicle have overtaken the first vehicle.
Liang teaches based on whether a plurality of vehicles including the second vehicle have overtaken the first vehicle (Liang: lines 178 – 180: “The object of the invention is also achieved by a system for estimating traffic flow. The system has means for detecting from one or more vehicles the number of vehicles overtaking those vehicles; and means for estimating traffic flow based on the number of vehicles passing said vehicles.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Solar with the teachings of Ogata with a reasonable expectation of success. Ogata teaches the ability of gathering data from the onboard sensors of vehicles to detect the number of overtaking vehicles (Liang: lines 322 – 325). This information being communicated to the vehicle of Solar would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, the safety level determination can now also evaluate the number of vehicles overpassing a leading vehicle, thus prior to starting the determination set forth by Solar, the safety level can be set to a higher level as multiple vehicles are overtaking the leading vehicle. This gives the vehicle system of Solar additional information from other vehicles about the overtaking of the leading vehicle, thus able to more accurately and efficiently calculate the overtaking safety level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights