DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 received on 07/03/2025 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-15 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2025 and 12/29/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The Examiner recommends adding elements of “handling a moving object traveling through a lane.”
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 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 1-8 and 10-15 are directed to an apparatus, i.e. a machine.
Claim 9 is directed to a method.
Therefore, claims 1-15 fall into at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong I (MPEP § 2106.04)
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 claims 1, 10 and 13 include 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:
1. A check device used for driving of a vehicle comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute:
assuming a trajectory along which a moving object passing through a lane in which the vehicle is present is predicted to travel such that the trajectory includes an inside of the lane; and
checking a collision risk between the vehicle and the moving object, by treating at least a part of a region occupied by the trajectory as a separate lane other than the lane in which the vehicle is present.
Claim 10 recites:
10. A check device used for driving of a vehicle, the check device comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute:
checking a collision risk between the vehicle and another road user;
determining whether to execute a proper response including braking, when the collision risk is determined to be higher than a preset threshold value;
changing a condition for determining the collision risk such that the collision risk is determined to be higher when the other road user is in a same lane as the vehicle than when the other road user is in a separate lane from the vehicle;
assuming a moving object passing through a lane in which the vehicle is present, as the other road user; and treating, in the determining of the collision risk, the moving object as being present in a separate lane other than the lane in which the vehicle is present even when the moving object is present in the lane in which the vehicle is present.
Claim 13 recites:
13. A system used for driving a vehicle and for displaying information using an information presentation device, which is a visual information presentation type, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to cause the information presentation device to display at least one of a trajectory or a travel route predicted to be traveled by a moving object passing through a vicinity of the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded claim limitations constitute a “mental process”, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The limitations of “assuming a trajectory […]”, “checking a collision risk”, and “determining” and “predicting” is equivalent to a person evaluating a behavior based on observation, i.e. a mental process of judgement based on observation. For example, identifying an object, predicting its trajectory and determining a collision risk.
Accordingly, claims 1-15 recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong II (MPEP § 2106.04)
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”):
Claim 1 recites:
1. A check device used for driving of a vehicle comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute:
assuming a trajectory along which a moving object passing through a lane in which the vehicle is present is predicted to travel such that the trajectory includes an inside of the lane; and
checking a collision risk between the vehicle and the moving object, by treating at least a part of a region occupied by the trajectory as a separate lane other than the lane in which the vehicle is present.
Claim 10 recites:
10. A check device used for driving of a vehicle, the check device comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute:
checking a collision risk between the vehicle and another road user;
determining whether to execute a proper response including braking, when the collision risk is determined to be higher than a preset threshold value;
changing a condition for determining the collision risk such that the collision risk is determined to be higher when the other road user is in a same lane as the vehicle than when the other road user is in a separate lane from the vehicle;
assuming a moving object passing through a lane in which the vehicle is present, as the other road user; and treating, in the determining of the collision risk, the moving object as being present in a separate lane other than the lane in which the vehicle is present even when the moving object is present in the lane in which the vehicle is present.
Claim 13 recites:
13. A system used for driving a vehicle and for displaying information using an information presentation device, which is a visual information presentation type, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to cause the information presentation device to display at least one of a trajectory or a travel route predicted to be traveled by a moving object passing through a vicinity of the vehicle.
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 “display at least one of a trajectory or a travel route” the examiner submits that the limitation is directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically insignificant post-solution displaying. Furthermore, “processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” are recited at a high level of generality and merely performs its intended function, thus simply being an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological 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.
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 (MPEP § 2106.05)
Step 2B of the Revised Guidance analyzes the claims to determine if the claims recite additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considered individually or in combination, the additional limitations of claim 1 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above as to why the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional element of using a generic computer to assuming, checking, determining and predicting amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of “displaying…”, the examiner submits that the limitation is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims recite limitations directed towards an abstract idea or further recite limitations directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
Dependent claims 14-15 recite additional claim limitations of displaying other information, which is directed to a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, similar to the representation claim 1 shown above.
Therefore, claims 1-15 recite abstract ideas with additional elements rendered at a high level of generality resulting in claims that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus are directed toward non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, the Examiner recommends adding the following claim element in order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application: Transmitting or performing a derived proper response, based on a check result, to or by the acting unit as supported by para. [0114] of the specification below.
[0114] The response unit 29 derives a proper response, based on a check result of the situation checking unit 28. The proper response may be provided to the acting unit 30 only when the situation is determined to be a hazardous situation
Regarding claim 13, the Examiner recommends adding (a) claim elements related to improving validity of handling a moving object, as supported by para. [0006] of the specification reproduced below, and (b) an additional claim limitation to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
[0006] For example, on a road during traffic congestion, on a road in emerging countries or densely populated areas, and the like, a moving object, for example, a motorcycle, a bicycle, a pedestrian, or the like may travel through the same lane as the lane in which the vehicle travels. In such a scenario, when the collision risk with the moving object is determined under the same conditions as for a normal vehicle, there is a concern that excessive vehicle responses may occur frequently, for example. There is also concern that a processing load related to the collision risk with the moving object will be increased.
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 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.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnicar (US10332292B1).
Regarding claim 13, Arnicar teaches a system used for driving a vehicle and for displaying information using an information presentation device, which is a visual information presentation type (FIG. 6B-6C; Claim 1: “An augmentation system for supplementing a person's view from a vehicle of an environment through which the vehicle travels”), the system comprising:
at least one processor (col 7 lines 30-35: “the architecture 200 may be implemented using a uniprocessor system including one processor, or a multiprocessor system including several processors (e.g., two, four, eight, or another suitable number).”); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (col 7 lines 45-48: “The example architecture 200 may include a non-transitory computer readable media configured to store executable instructions/modules, data, and/or data items accessible by the processor(s)”) cause the information presentation device to display at least one of a trajectory or a travel route predicted to be traveled by a moving object passing through a vicinity of the vehicle (FIG. 6B-6C; FIG. 7; col 23 lines 46-49: “At step 706 of the example method 700, the method 700 may include displaying, within the person's view from the vehicle 102, images representative of the display data 238 to supplement the person's view”; col 22 lines 4-9: “In some examples, the cyclist image 642 may also include an indication of a predicted trajectory, which may be co-extensive with the arrow 644, unless, for example, other objects in the environment 100 are moving such that it is predictable that the cyclist 130 will change speed and/or direction of trajectory”; col 14 lines 60-64: “For example, the person's view may include the person's view of the vehicle's surrounding environment 100 through a windshield or window”, wherein FIG. 6B shows moving objects and its predicted trajectories in a surrounding of the vehicle viewed by the driver and detected by sensor, thus indicating a moving object passing through a vicinity of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, Arnicar teaches the system according to claim 13. Arnicar further teaches wherein the processor further causes the information presentation device to display the moving object passing through the vicinity of the vehicle superimposed on an image displaying at least one of the trajectory or the travel route (FIG. 6B-6C; col 22 lines 4-9: “In some examples, the cyclist image 642 may also include an indication of a predicted trajectory, which may be co-extensive with the arrow 644, unless, for example, other objects in the environment 100 are moving such that it is predictable that the cyclist 130 will change speed and/or direction of trajectory”; col 14 lines 60-64: “For example, the person's view may include the person's view of the vehicle's surrounding environment 100 through a windshield or window”; col 20 lines 58-61: “The example supplementation 602 includes a trajectory image 506 and a predicted trajectory image 508 for the vehicle 102, as well as road images 510 depicting the edges 106 of the road 104 on which the vehicle 102 is traveling.”).
Regarding claim 15, Arnicar teaches the system according to claim 13. Arnicar further teaches wherein the processor further causes the information presentation device to display at least one of a longitudinal position, longitudinal speed, longitudinal acceleration, longitudinal deceleration, a lateral position, lateral speed, lateral acceleration, or lateral deceleration assumed for the moving object passing through the vicinity of the vehicle in association with at least one of the trajectory or the travel route (FIG. 6B-6C; col 22 lines 4-9: “In some examples, the cyclist image 642 may also include an indication of a predicted trajectory, which may be co-extensive with the arrow 644, unless, for example, other objects in the environment 100 are moving such that it is predictable that the cyclist 130 will change speed and/or direction of trajectory”; col 14 lines 60-64: “For example, the person's view may include the person's view of the vehicle's surrounding environment 100 through a windshield or window” col 22 lines 10-16: “For example, if another vehicle were to turn toward the cyclist 130 as the cyclist 130 crosses the road 104, the cyclist 130 might be predicted to take evasive action to avoid being hit by the vehicle. This may be predicted by the path calculator 214, and the augmentation system 234 may use the predicted trajectory of the cyclist 130 to display an image representative of the predicted trajectory of the cyclist 130”, wherein positions are shown in FIG.6B-6C and are associated with at least one of the trajectory or the travel route in the surrounding).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9-10, closest prior arts, TOMOYOSHI (JP2021009580A), YOSHIMASA (JP 2021162932 A) and YOO (US20190384293A1), taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole.
TOMOYOSHI teaches a first detection area (FIG. 4; pg 4 paragraph 1: “the first object detection region 51 is a region corresponding to one or both of the left lane and the right lane of the lane in which the own vehicle 20 is traveling as shown in FIG. 4, or a preset region.”) and a second detection area in response to a first object in a first detection area to detect a second object passing through the slip through area (pg. 4 paragraph 3: “The slip-through area setting unit 2 sets a slip-through detection area 52 between the own vehicle 20 and the first object 21”; pg 4 last paragraph: “The second object detection unit 3 detects the second object 22 which is an object that may pass through the slip-through detection area 52.”) and warn the driver based on a possibility of contact (pg 8 paragraph 3: “For example, when the warning notification unit 5 determines that there is a possibility of contact with the second object 22, the steering wheel or driving is performed with the right or left indicator that was turned on when the second object 22 is detected turned on. Turn on the vibrator installed in the seat and make the speaker output a warning sound. Alternatively, the warning notification unit 5 may increase the degree of warning by increasing the illuminance of the right or left indicator or blinking it.”), but fails to specifically teach checking a collision risk between the vehicle and the moving object, by treating at least a part of a region occupied by the trajectory as a separate lane other than the lane in which the vehicle is present even when the moving object is present in the lane in which the vehicle is present.
YOSHIMASA teaches detecting a motorcycle and determine risk associated with motorcycle passing the vehicle (pg 8 paragraph 2: “Based on the various acquired data and information, the situation determination unit 13 determines whether or not there is a risk situation associated with the lateral passage of the motorcycle 7 detected to be around the vehicle 1. […] above-mentioned risk situation (for example, a high risk situation in which the running of the motorcycle 7 becomes unstable). do”) and adjust the lateral position of the vehicle based on the risk to prompt the motorcycle to reconsider passing the vehicle (pg 10 paragraph 3: “Therefore, in the check according to the first embodiment, as an example of the check, the vehicle control unit 14 brings the lateral position of the center of the vehicle 1 closer to the lateral position of the center of the motorcycle 7 behind the vehicle 1 as described above. Adjust the lateral position of 1 in front of the motorcycle 7. By adjusting the lateral position, the vehicle 1 according to the first embodiment prompts the driver of the two-wheeled vehicle 7 to reconsider the passing through of the vehicle 1.”), but fails to specifically teach checking a collision risk between the vehicle and the moving object, by treating at least a part of a region occupied by the trajectory as a separate lane other than the lane in which the vehicle is present even when the moving object is present in the lane in which the vehicle is present.
YOO teaches dividing generate virtual lanes on a road with no lines (FIG. 2; para. [0071]: “In the virtual lane generation step S10, when it is determined in step S11 that the width of the road with no lines is equal to or more than the reference road width, the control unit 30 may generate virtual lanes by generating a virtual center line on the road with no lines and then generating virtual lines such that one or more virtual lanes having a preset vehicle width are generated on both sides of the virtual center line, in step S13”) and determine whether to overtake an object based on its location on the virtual lane (para. [0074]: “When it is determined that the ego vehicle can bypass the fixed obstacle on the driving lane, the control unit 30 may control the autonomous driving of the ego vehicle to bypass the fixed obstacle on the driving lane through the virtual lane on which the ego vehicle is driving or another virtual lane, in step S36 a”), but fails to specifically teach checking a collision risk between the vehicle and the moving object, by treating at least a part of a region occupied by the trajectory as a separate lane other than the lane in which the vehicle is present even when the moving object is present in the lane in which the vehicle is present.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LEE (US 20230399004 A1) teaches displaying a guidance associated with a lane to be driven, which corresponds to the notification event, by using a second AR object separated from a first AR object indicating a current driving state of the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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 on (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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights