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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) are: recognition unit, availability unit, evacuation area setting unit claim 1..
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 § 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claims 1, 12 are directed to a system and process. Therefore, claims 1, 12 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle control device comprising:
a recognition unit configured to recognize external world information of a periphery of an own vehicle and detect an evacuation candidate area for evacuating the own vehicle that passes by an oncoming vehicle;
an availability determination unit configured to determine availability of the evacuation candidate area detected by the recognition unit; and
an evacuation area setting unit configured to set the evacuation candidate area determined as usable by the availability determination unit as an evacuation area.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining availability, setting unit…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) 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 in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle control device comprising:
a recognition unit configured to recognize external world information of a periphery of an own vehicle and detect an evacuation candidate area for evacuating the own vehicle that passes by an oncoming vehicle;
an availability determination unit configured to determine availability of the evacuation candidate area detected by the recognition unit; and
an evacuation area setting unit configured to set the evacuation candidate area determined as usable by the availability determination unit as an evacuation area.
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 “recognition unit” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (vehicle controller) to perform the process. In particular, the recognition steps from the sensors and from the external source are 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. Lastly, the “vehicle controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determining… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “recognition unit…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “recognition unit to recognize external world information ” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims1-12 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)(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.
Claims 1,2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2024/0378903).
As to claim 1 discloses a vehicle control device comprising:
a recognition unit configured to recognize external world information of a periphery of an own vehicle and detect an evacuation candidate area for evacuating the own vehicle that passes by an oncoming vehicle (Paragraphs95 “FIG. 10 illustrates an example of an image displayed to notify the driver of a target pull-over point S. In the example of the displayed image illustrated in FIG. 10, information on the target pull-over point S located ahead of the vehicle 1 is displayed together with text indicating the distance from the vehicle 1 to the target pull-over point S and icons of following vehicles 101a and 101b, oncoming vehicles 103a and 103b, a pedestrian 107, and a cyclist 109;”)
an availability determination unit configured to determine availability of the evacuation candidate area detected by the recognition unit (Paragraph 95 “FIG. 10 illustrates an example of an image displayed to notify the driver of a target pull-over point S. In the example of the displayed image illustrated in FIG. 10, information on the target pull-over point S located ahead of the vehicle 1 is displayed together with text indicating the distance from the vehicle 1 to the target pull-over point S and icons of following vehicles 101a and 101b, oncoming vehicles 103a and 103b, a pedestrian 107, and a cyclist 109;”); and
an evacuation area setting unit configured to set the evacuation candidate area determined as usable by the availability determination unit as an evacuation area (Paragraph 89 “First, the driver condition determination unit 64 calculates a consciousness level indicating the level of consciousness of the driver in a procedure similar to that in step S43 (step S61). Then, the assistance processing unit 65 sets a target pull-over point according to the consciousness level (step S63). For example, the assistance processing unit 65 uses the map data stored in the navigation system 40 and the information on the current position of the vehicle 1 to search for a target pull-over point in an area located ahead in the traveling direction of the vehicle 1 and having a width corresponding to the consciousness level”, Paragraph 95 “FIG. 10 illustrates an example of an image displayed to notify the driver of a target pull-over point S. In the example of the displayed image illustrated in FIG. 10, information on the target pull-over point S located ahead of the vehicle 1 is displayed together with text indicating the distance from the vehicle 1 to the target pull-over point S and icons of following vehicles 101a and 101b, oncoming vehicles 103a and 103b, a pedestrian 107, and a cyclist 109;”).
As to claim 2 Suzuki discloses a vehicle control device wherein the availability determination unit determines availability of the evacuation candidate area based on at least one of map information registered in advance and the external world information recognized by the recognition unit (Paragraph 91).
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 1.
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.
Claims 3, 9-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2024/0378903) in view of Tsuji (US 2021/0229705)
As to claim 3 Tsuji teaches a vehicle control device wherein in a case where there are a plurality of the evacuation candidate areas, the availability determination unit determines availability of the evacuation candidate area based on a usage priority corresponding to each piece of feature information of the plurality of evacuation candidate areas set in advance (Paragraph 219). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Suzuki to include the teachings of determine usage priority of the evacuation zone in advance for the purpose of determining a safe place for the vehicle to pull over.
As to claim 9 Suzuki discloses a vehicle control device further comprising:
an update unit configured to update the map information such that information of the evacuation area is included in the map information after the own vehicle evacuates to the evacuation area set by the evacuation area setting unit (Paragraph 91).
As to claim 10 Suzuki discloses a vehicle control device further comprising:
a communication unit configured to transmit the map information updated by the update unit to a vehicle management server that manages the own vehicle (Paragraph 91, 108).
As to claim 11 Suzuki discloses a vehicle control device wherein the communication unit acquires map information managed by the vehicle management server(Paragraph 91, 108).
Claims 4-6, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2024/0378903) in view of Tsuji (US 2021/0229705), and in further view of Izumi (US 2025/0360925)
As to claim 4 Izumi teaches a vehicle control device wherein the evacuation candidate area is an empty area other than a road adjacent to the road on which the own vehicle travels (Paragraph 98). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Suzuki to include the teachings of determining an evacuation candidate area other than the road adjacent to the vehicle for the purpose of improving safety and preventing collisions of an oncoming vehicle.
As to claim 5 Izumi teaches vehicle control device wherein the feature information includes at least one of land information of the evacuation candidate area and information regarding an obstacle installed in the evacuation candidate area (Paragraph 98).
As to claim 6 Tsuji teaches vehicle control device wherein the information regarding the obstacle includes information regarding a sign indicating entry availability to the evacuation candidate area is possible, and information regarding an obstacle for preventing entry into the evacuation candidate area (Paragraph 209). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Suzuki to include the teachings of providing information regarding entry into an evacuation zone for the purpose of pulling the vehicle over safely.
As to claim 7 discloses a vehicle control device wherein the empty area includes land of a certain segment (Paragraph 98).
As to claim 8 Izumi teaches a vehicle control device wherein the land of the certain segment includes a sidewalk adjacent to the road, a land of a building adjacent to the road, and a private land adjacent to the road (Paragraph 98).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights