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 the Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit, which is configured to carry out a method according to claim 1” in claim 12.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is 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. Specifically, claim limitation “A control unit, which is configured to carry out a method according to claim 1” 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. In this case, the specification is silent as to the structure of the control unit. 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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, claim 12 depends from claim 1, but fails to further limit the method. Claim 13 depends from claim 1, but fails to further limit the method. Claim 14 depends from claim 13, but fails to further limit the computer program. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 13 recites “A computer program for carrying out a method according to claim 1”. In light of Applicant’s disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably presume that the whole of claim 13 is intended to be implemented as solely as software. An invention implemented and instantiated solely as software is not a process or a composition of matter and lacks the requisite structure elements to comprise a machine or article of manufacture. As such, Applicant’s invention fails to fall within any of the four classes of statutory subject matter as described in 35 U.S.C 101 and is so rejected on that basis.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 14 recites “A machine-readable storage medium on which the computer program according to claim 13 is stored”. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, Applicant has claimed “a machine-readable storage medium” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a machine-readable storage medium typically covers form of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is non-limiting, as it is in this case. According to Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212 (February 23, 2010), the USPTO suggests the following approach: a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0262366 (Takashima et al.).
Regarding claims 1 and 12-14, Takashima discloses a method, control unit, computer program, and a machine-readable storage medium for improved positioning of an ego vehicle that includes a localization system ([0045] The position detecting apparatus 32 is an apparatus which detects the current position (latitude, longitude, altitude) of the ego vehicle, and a GPS antenna which receives the signal outputted from satellites, such as GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System), is used), a 3D object recognition module ([0017] acquiring position information, speed information, and shape information on one or more adjacent vehicles which travel in an adjacent lane adjacent to an object lane where the object vehicle is traveling, based on the periphery state and the vehicle state of the object vehicle), and a position amalgamation module (See Fig. 5; [0075] As shown in FIG. 5, the feature amount calculation unit 53 calculates an overlap length Lov of position range where the position range of the prediction object vehicle and the position range of the ego vehicle overlap in the longitudinal direction X, based on the relative position of the prediction object vehicle in the longitudinal direction X with respect to the ego vehicle, the vehicle length Lm of the prediction object vehicle, and the vehicle length Lego of the ego vehicle), the method comprising:
a) determining the position of the ego vehicle for the current time step with the localization system ([0045] The position detecting apparatus 32 is an apparatus which detects the current position (latitude, longitude, altitude) of the ego vehicle, and a GPS antenna which receives the signal outputted from satellites, such as GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System), is used);
b) determining a position of at least one adjacent vehicle in the vicinity of the ego vehicle with the 3D object recognition module ([0017] an information acquisition step of acquiring a periphery state of an object vehicle and a vehicle state of the object vehicle, and acquiring position information, speed information, and shape information on one or more adjacent vehicles which travel in an adjacent lane adjacent to an object lane where the object vehicle is traveling, based on the periphery state and the vehicle state of the object vehicle);
c) amalgamating the position of the ego vehicle determined in step a) with the position of the at least one adjacent vehicle determined in step b) to form a position amalgamation result with the position amalgamation module (See Fig. 5; [0075] As shown in FIG. 5, the feature amount calculation unit 53 calculates an overlap length Lov of position range where the position range of the prediction object vehicle and the position range of the ego vehicle overlap in the longitudinal direction X, based on the relative position of the prediction object vehicle in the longitudinal direction X with respect to the ego vehicle, the vehicle length Lm of the prediction object vehicle, and the vehicle length Lego of the ego vehicle. When not overlapping, the overlap length Lov becomes 0. The position range of the prediction object vehicle is set, based on the position information and the shape information on the prediction object vehicle which were acquired by the information acquisition unit 51. For example, the position range of the prediction object vehicle may be set to a position range in the longitudinal direction X where the prediction object vehicle was recognized, or may be set based on the representative position and the vehicle length of the prediction object vehicle); and
d) determining the position of the ego vehicle for the next time step with the localization system, taking into account the amalgamation result ([0119] Alternatively, in order to perform higher level automatic driving, the driving support unit 55 may generate a time series target traveling trajectory. The time series target traveling trajectory is a time series traveling plan of a target position, a target traveling direction, a target speed, a target acceleration, and the like of the ego vehicle at each future time. The driving support unit 55 changes the target traveling trajectory, based on the prediction result of the lane change destination position).
Regarding claim 2, Takashima discloses wherein: in step a), the position of the ego vehicle is determined with the localization system from measured GNSS signals ([0045] The position detecting apparatus 32 is an apparatus which detects the current position (latitude, longitude, altitude) of the ego vehicle, and a GPS antenna which receives the signal outputted from satellites, such as GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System), is used).
Regarding claim 6, Takashima discloses a device for improved positioning for an ego vehicle, comprising a localization system ([0045] The position detecting apparatus 32 is an apparatus which detects the current position (latitude, longitude, altitude) of the ego vehicle, and a GPS antenna which receives the signal outputted from satellites, such as GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System), is used), a 3D object recognition module ([0017] acquiring position information, speed information, and shape information on one or more adjacent vehicles which travel in an adjacent lane adjacent to an object lane where the object vehicle is traveling, based on the periphery state and the vehicle state of the object vehicle), and a position amalgamation module (See Fig. 5; [0075] As shown in FIG. 5, the feature amount calculation unit 53 calculates an overlap length Lov of position range where the position range of the prediction object vehicle and the position range of the ego vehicle overlap in the longitudinal direction X, based on the relative position of the prediction object vehicle in the longitudinal direction X with respect to the ego vehicle, the vehicle length Lm of the prediction object vehicle, and the vehicle length Lego of the ego vehicle), wherein the localization system, the 3D object recognition module, and the position amalgamation module are installable in an ego vehicle (Fig. 1), and wherein the localization system for determining the position of an ego vehicle ([0045] The position detecting apparatus 32 is an apparatus which detects the current position (latitude, longitude, altitude) of the ego vehicle, and a GPS antenna which receives the signal outputted from satellites, such as GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System), is used), the 3D object recognition module for determining a position of at least one adjacent vehicle in the vicinity of the ego vehicle ([0017] an information acquisition step of acquiring a periphery state of an object vehicle and a vehicle state of the object vehicle, and acquiring position information, speed information, and shape information on one or more adjacent vehicles which travel in an adjacent lane adjacent to an object lane where the object vehicle is traveling, based on the periphery state and the vehicle state of the object vehicle), and the position amalgamation module is configured to determine a position amalgamation result by amalgamating the position of the ego vehicle with the position of the at least one adjacent vehicle (See Fig. 5; [0075] As shown in FIG. 5, the feature amount calculation unit 53 calculates an overlap length Lov of position range where the position range of the prediction object vehicle and the position range of the ego vehicle overlap in the longitudinal direction X, based on the relative position of the prediction object vehicle in the longitudinal direction X with respect to the ego vehicle, the vehicle length Lm of the prediction object vehicle, and the vehicle length Lego of the ego vehicle. When not overlapping, the overlap length Lov becomes 0. The position range of the prediction object vehicle is set, based on the position information and the shape information on the prediction object vehicle which were acquired by the information acquisition unit 51. For example, the position range of the prediction object vehicle may be set to a position range in the longitudinal direction X where the prediction object vehicle was recognized, or may be set based on the representative position and the vehicle length of the prediction object vehicle), and wherein the localization system is capable of determining the position of the ego vehicle in consideration of the position amalgamation result ([0119] Alternatively, in order to perform higher level automatic driving, the driving support unit 55 may generate a time series target traveling trajectory. The time series target traveling trajectory is a time series traveling plan of a target position, a target traveling direction, a target speed, a target acceleration, and the like of the ego vehicle at each future time. The driving support unit 55 changes the target traveling trajectory, based on the prediction result of the lane change destination position).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0262366 (Takashima et al.) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0308549 (Lee et al.).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Takashima discloses the method and device of claims 1 and 6 as discussed above. Takashima fails to expressly disclose using the 3D bounding box prediction approach. Lee discloses in claim 20 the autonomous driving control method wherein the searching of the user vehicle among the at least one vehicle based on the at least one of the at least one piece of image data, the 2D data, the 3D data, the user vehicle information, or the combination thereof by the controller includes: controlling, by the controller, the mobile device to move adjacent to a vehicle corresponding to the bounding box identified as having the specified temperature or more; obtaining, by the controller, vehicle information of the vehicle corresponding to the bounding box, based on the first image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Takashima and utilize any well-known searching technique for adjacent vehicles, including using bounding box techniques, to sufficiently and accurately detect adjacent vehicles within the range of the ego vehicle.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0262366 (Takashima et al.) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0294373 (Srinivasan et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Takashima discloses the device according to claim 6 as discussed above. Takashima further discloses [0108] For example, as the prediction model, various kinds of well-known statistical models or machine learning models, such as SVM (Support Vector Machine), the decision tree, and the neural network, are used. Since various kinds of statistical models or machine learning models are well-known, explanation is omitted. While Takashima discloses a learning neural network, Takashima fails to disclose a deep learning trained neural network.
Srinivasan discloses in an embodiment, the TMS 501 uses traditional morphological image processing algorithms, for example, skeletonization, and segmentation, and other pattern recognition methods, for example, template matching with known shapes that match the desired objects such as humans or pets or vehicles in different postures. In an embodiment, the TMS 501 also uses one or more of deep learning and machine learning methods that are specifically tuned to identifying certain shapes that resemble the desired objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Takashima and utilize any well known and efficient machine learning model, such as a deep learning model, in order to identify adjacent vehicles quickly and effectively for the environment the ego vehicle is in.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Taylor (US 2024/0409125) discloses vehicle systems and methods for autonomous operation using unclassified hazard detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KERRI L MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/KERRI L MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights