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 Objections
Claims 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “caused toto:” to read --caused to:--
In claim 20, line 2, it appears Applicant intended “cause one or more processors to” to read --cause the one or more processors to--, as antecedent basis for “one or more processors” has previously been established in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 9-20 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
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), independent claim 11 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine), and independent claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 20 are each within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, 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. The apparatus and storage medium of claims 11 and 20 mirror claim 1 and are analyzed similarly. Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
obtaining a first path remaining distance comprising a distance between an intelligent driving device and an end point of a planned parking path along the planned parking path;
determining a first speed limit based on the first path remaining distance;
determining a second speed limit based on first obstacle distance information, comprising a distance between the intelligent driving device and a surrounding obstacle; and
determining a parking speed of the intelligent driving device based on the first speed limit and the second speed limit.
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 a first speed limit based on the first path remaining distance”, “determining a second speed limit based on first obstacle distance information, comprising a distance between the intelligent driving device and a surrounding obstacle”, and “determining a parking speed of the intelligent driving device based on the first speed limit and the second speed limit”, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person observing a remaining distance to a desired parking position and a distance of at least one obstacle, and determining a speed at which they should proceed according to respective implied speed limits associated with each observation. Additionally, the claims lack a vehicle control step to make the various determined speed limits into a practical application. 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 method, comprising:
obtaining a first path remaining distance comprising a distance between an intelligent driving device and an end point of a planned parking path along the planned parking path;
determining a first speed limit based on the first path remaining distance;
determining a second speed limit based on first obstacle distance information, comprising a distance between the intelligent driving device and a surrounding obstacle; and
determining a parking speed of the intelligent driving device based on the first speed limit and the second speed limit.
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 limitation of “obtaining a first path remaining distance comprising a distance between an intelligent driving device and an end point of a planned parking path along the planned parking path” the examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses a computer (circuitry) to perform the process. In particular, the obtaining step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data related to a vehicle environment), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “circuitry” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computerized vehicle environment.
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 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 circuitry to perform the various speed limit determining steps 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 “obtaining a first path remaining distance comprising a distance between an intelligent driving device and an end point of a planned parking path along the planned parking path”, 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 “obtaining a first path remaining distance comprising a distance between an intelligent driving device and an end point of a planned parking path along the planned parking path” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as outlined in the prior art rejection(s) below. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-10, and 12-19 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. Said claims as a whole recite a mental process because the claims recite, under their broadest reasonable interpretation as drafted,
Performing the steps of claim 1 for each of a plurality of points along the path, determining a second speed limit corresponding to the first path point based on two obstacle speed limits at two points, determining a smaller of two speed limits as the second speed limit, further employing various geometries of the parking path and temporal relationships to determine the parking speed at each of the plurality of points, determining a collison risk of the driving device, projecting a feature point to determine the parking path remaining distance, and determining an obstacle on the side of the vehicle. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirozono et al. (US PGPub. No. 2021/0291814).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Shirozono discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining a first path remaining distance comprising a distance between an intelligent driving device [OV] and an end point [D] of a planned parking path [TR] along the planned parking path (Figure 4; ¶0076);
determining a first speed limit based on the first path remaining distance (¶0076);
determining a second speed limit based on first obstacle distance information, comprising a distance between the intelligent driving device and a surrounding obstacle [OB] (¶0055, ¶0059, ¶0062, ¶0077, ¶0080); and
determining a parking speed of the intelligent driving device based on the first speed limit and the second speed limit (¶0055, ¶0059, ¶0062, ¶0076-0077, ¶0080). Examiner notes that Shirozono’s vehicle speed control during parking and speed control when an obstacle is present reads on “determining a parking speed … based on the first speed limit and the second speed limit”, as claimed. Furthermore, Shirozono’s obstacle detection includes determining a distance to an obstacle and stopping (i.e. reducing vehicle speed to zero) a predetermined distance from the obstacle, which reads on “determining a second speed limit based on first obstacle distance information, comprising a distance between the intelligent driving device and a surrounding obstacle”, as claimed.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Shirozono discloses the method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively, wherein the determining the first speed limit based on the first path remaining distance comprises:
for each path point in a plurality of path points (Examiner notes Shirozono’s control method is carried out in real-time, and in this way is carried out repeatedly at a plurality of points along the parking path),
determining a path remaining distance between a path point in the plurality of path points of the planned parking path within the first path remaining distance and the end point of the planned parking path based on the plurality of path points (¶0076); and
determining, based on the path remaining distance between the path point and the end point of the planned parking path, a first speed limit corresponding to each path point (¶0076);
the determining a second speed limit based on first obstacle distance information comprises:
determining, based on obstacle distance information corresponding to the path point, a second speed limit corresponding to the path point (¶0055, ¶0059, ¶0062, ¶0077, ¶0080); and
the determining the parking speed of the intelligent driving device based on the first speed limit and the second speed limit comprises:
determining a parking speed at the path point based on the first speed limit corresponding to the path point and the second speed limit corresponding to the path point (¶0055, ¶0059, ¶0062, ¶0076-0077, ¶0080).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Shirozono discloses the method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively, further comprising:
determining an actual parking path of the intelligent driving device based on a movement state parameter of the intelligent driving device and the planned parking path (¶0061-0063; ¶0070-0071); and
determining, based on the actual parking path, whether the intelligent driving device has a collision risk (¶0061-0063; ¶0070-0071).
Regarding claim 8, Shirozono discloses the method according to claim 7, further comprising:
determining a braking distance when determining that the intelligent driving device has a collision risk (¶0077, ¶0080, ¶0112); and
controlling, based on the braking distance, the intelligent driving device to brake (¶0055, ¶0077, ¶0080).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Shirozono discloses the method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively, further comprising:
determining the first path remaining distance based on the planned parking path and a projection of a first feature point [OV] of the intelligent driving device on the planned parking path, wherein the first feature point is used to construct an intelligent driving device coordinate system of the intelligent driving device (Figure 13).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Shirozono discloses the method according to claims 1 and 11, respectively, further comprising:
determining an obstacle [OB] on a side of the intelligent driving device (Figure 13); and
determining the first obstacle distance information based on the obstacle on the side of the intelligent driving device (¶0055, ¶0059, ¶0062, ¶0077, ¶0080).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights