DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on August 7th, 2025. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on August 7th, 2025, August 20th, 2025, and December 11th, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to JP2019-130771 and JP2019-131256 dated July 15th and 16th, respectively.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
“…liability determination information acquisition unit configured to acquire…” in claims 1-4. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0000] of Applicant’s specification, “the external I/F unit 253 which acquires the sensor value S is a liability determination information acquisition unit”.
“…potential accident liability information determination unit configured to determine” in claims 1 and 2. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0000] of Applicant’s specification; “The sensor integration unit 140 and the potential accident liability value determination unit 151 of the accident liability determination unit 150 can be realized by a configuration including at least one processor. For example, the sensor integration unit 140 and the potential accident liability value determination unit 151 can be realized by a computer including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, I/O, and a bus line connecting these configurations, etc.…The sensor integration unit 140 includes a target vehicle behavior determination unit 141 and a rule acquisition unit 142.”.
“…target vehicle behavior determination unit that is configured to sequentially determine…” in claim 2. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0000] of Applicant’s specification; “The sensor integration unit 140 and the potential accident liability value determination unit 151 of the accident liability determination unit 150 can be realized by a configuration including at least one processor. For example, the sensor integration unit 140 and the potential accident liability value determination unit 151 can be realized by a computer including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, I/O, and a bus line connecting these configurations, etc.…The sensor integration unit 140 includes a target vehicle behavior determination unit 141 and a rule acquisition unit 142.”
“…rule acquisition unit configured to acquire…” in claim 2. Structure for this limitation can be found at paragraph [0000] of Applicant’s specification; “The sensor integration unit 140 and the potential accident liability value determination unit 151 of the accident liability determination unit 150 can be realized by a configuration including at least one processor. For example, the sensor integration unit 140 and the potential accident liability value determination unit 151 can be realized by a computer including a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, I/O, and a bus line connecting these configurations, etc.…The sensor integration unit 140 includes a target vehicle behavior determination unit 141 and a rule acquisition unit 142.”
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
The term “around” in claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what distance from the host vehicle would be considered around versus not around. Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are additionally rejected due to their dependence on claims 1 and 5
Claims 2, 4, 7, and 8 recite the limitation "the peripheral vehicle" and “each peripheral vehicle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of prior art application, Examiner is interpreting the peripheral vehicle as intending to mean the target vehicle.
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 1-8 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
Claim 1 is directed to a device for determining potential accident liability (i.e., an apparatus), and Claim 5 is also directed to a device for determining potential accident liability (i.e. an apparatus). Therefore, claims 1-8 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.
In this case independent claims 1 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain 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 5 recites:
A potential accident liability determination device, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing computer readable program code, wherein the computer readable program code, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the potential accident liability determination device to:
acquire liability determination information being information used to determine potential accident liability information indicating whether a liability determination vehicle being a vehicle for which the potential accident liability information is determined is liable for a potentially assumed accident between the liability determination vehicle and a target vehicle selected from surrounding vehicles existing around the liability determination vehicle; and
determine the potential accident liability information based on (i) a preset relationship for determining the potential accident liability information from the liability determination information and (ii) the acquired liability determination information, wherein
the potential accident liability determination device is installed outside of the liability determination vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold 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, “acquire liability determination information…determine the potential accident liability information…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (operator) observing the behavior of surrounding vehicles and determining if a collision may occur between vehicles and whether one person is not complying with road laws. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 5 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claim 1, which are of similar scope to claim 5, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, prong I.
101 Analysis – Step2A, 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 idea 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 potential accident liability determination device, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory storing computer readable program code, wherein the computer readable program code, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the potential accident liability determination device to:
acquire liability determination information being information used to determine potential accident liability information indicating whether a liability determination vehicle being a vehicle for which the potential accident liability information is determined is liable for a potentially assumed accident between the liability determination vehicle and a target vehicle selected from surrounding vehicles existing around the liability determination vehicle; and
determine the potential accident liability information based on (i) a preset relationship for determining the potential accident liability information from the liability determination information and (ii) the acquired liability determination information, wherein
the potential accident liability determination device is installed outside of the liability determination 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 limitations of “one processor,” “…at least one memory storing computer readable program…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic sensors and generic computer components to perform the processes. Additionally, the “acquire liability determination information” step from the device amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor and memory merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using generic components in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determine potential accident liability 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 – Step2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 15 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 elements of a processor and memory, amount 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 acquire potential accident liability information 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 “…acquire liability determination information …” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because 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 claim 5 is not patent eligible. Claim 1 is also not patent eligible for the same reasons as stated in the above claim 5 rejection.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 2-4 and 6-8 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by US-20190291728 (hereinafter, “Shalev-Shwartz”).
Regarding claim 1 Shalev-Shwartz discloses a potential accident liability determination device (see at least [0599]; “The above-described driving policy system (e.g., the RL system) may be implemented together with one or more of the described accident liability rules to provide a navigational system that takes into account potential accident liability when deciding on a particular navigational instruction to implement”), comprising:
a liability determination information acquisition unit configured to acquire liability determination information being information used to determine potential accident liability information indicating whether a liability determination vehicle being a vehicle for which the potential accident liability information is determined is liable for a potentially assumed accident between the liability determination vehicle and a target vehicle selected from surrounding vehicles existing around the liability determination vehicle (see at least [0600]; “Based on the input, the processor may identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle, e.g., by analyzing camera images, LIDAR output, RADAR output, etc. In some embodiments, the processor may identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle by analyzing one or more inputs, such as one or more camera images, LIDAR output, and/or RADAR output. Further, in some embodiments, the processor may identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle based on an agreement of a majority or combination of sensor inputs ( e.g., by analyzing one or more camera images, LIDAR output, and/or RADAR output, and receiving a detection result identifying the target vehicle based on a majority agreement or combination of the inputs)… Based on the information available to the driving policy module, an output may be provided in the form of one or more planned navigational actions for accomplishing a navigational goal of the host vehicle. In some embodiments, the RSS safety constraint may be applied as a filter of the planned navigational actions. That is, the planned navigational action, once developed, can be tested against at least one accident liability rule (e.g., any of the accident liability rules discussed above) for determining potential accident liability for the host vehicle relative to the identified target vehicle,” the information from the host vehicle’s sensors correspond to the potential accident liability determination information, as it is used to determine who would be liable in the potential accident); and
a potential accident liability information determination unit configured to determine the potential accident liability information based on (i) a preset relationship for determining the potential accident liability information from the liability determination information and (ii) the liability determination information acquired by the liability determination information acquisition unit (see at least [0599]; “the RSS safety constraint may be applied as a filter layer through which all proposed navigational actions proposed by the planning phase are tested against the relevant accident liability rules to ensure that the proposed navigational actions are in compliance… if the proposed navigational action is not in compliance with the RSS safety constraint (e.g., if the proposed action could result in accident liability to the host vehicle based on one or more of the above-described rules), then the action is not taken.” the rules for determining the liability based on the received sensor information constitutes a relationship between the information and determining liability, if the vehicle’s path is not in compliance with the rules than the vehicle would be liable in the potential accident), wherein
the potential accident liability determination device is installed outside of the liability determination vehicle (see at least [0758]; “The navigation system may be a safety system or any other system disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the system may be fully housed within a host vehicle. In other embodiments, one or more components of the system may be located in a location remote from the host vehicle, such as in a server or other device”).
Regarding claim 2 Shalev-Shwartz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the liability determination information acquisition unit is configured to acquire, as the liability determination information, a sensor value that is detected by a sensor provided in the liability determination vehicle and indicates a behavior of the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0607]; “In some embodiments, an accident liability tracking system for a host vehicle may include at least one processing device programmed to receive, from an image capture device, at least one image representative of an environment of the host vehicle and analyze the at least one image to identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle. Based on analysis of the at least one image, the processor may include programming to determine one or more characteristics of a navigational state of the identified target vehicle. The navigational state may include various operational characteristics of the target vehicle, such as vehicle speed, proximity to a center of a lane, lateral velocity, direction of travel, distance from the host vehicle, heading, or any other parameter that may be used to determine potential accident liability based on any of the rules described above,” the image provided by the imaging sensor corresponds to the sensor value),
the potential accident liability determination device further comprises:
a target vehicle behavior determination unit that is configured to sequentially determine, based on the sensor value, a relative behavior of the target vehicle selected from the surrounding vehicles with respect to the liability determination vehicle (see at least [0607]; “In some embodiments, an accident liability tracking system for a host vehicle may include at least one processing device programmed to receive, from an image capture device, at least one image representative of an environment of the host vehicle and analyze the at least one image to identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle. Based on analysis of the at least one image, the processor may include programming to determine one or more characteristics of a navigational state of the identified target vehicle. The navigational state may include various operational characteristics of the target vehicle, such as vehicle speed, proximity to a center of a lane, lateral velocity, direction of travel, distance from the host vehicle, heading, or any other parameter that may be used to determine potential accident liability based on any of the rules described above,” the image analysis yields information of the target such as speed, direction, etc. which corresponds to the relative behavior); and
a rule acquisition unit configured to acquire an accident liability rule at a position where the potential accident liability information is determined (see at least [0602]; “In some embodiments, the system may test a plurality of potential navigational actions against the at least one accident liability rule,” and [0609]; “As noted, the accident liability rules used as the basis for liability tracking may include any of the rules described above or any other suitable rule. For example, the at least one accident liability rule may include a lateral velocity rule, a lateral position rule, a driving direction priority rule, a traffic light-based rule, a traffic sign-based rule, a route priority rule, etc.,” a rule is acquired and applied to the navigational action), and
the potential accident liability information determination unit is configured to sequentially determine the potential accident liability information based on the relative behavior of the target vehicle and the accident liability rule acquired by the rule acquisition unit (see at least [0611]; “test the planned navigational action against at least one accident liability rule for determining potential accident liability for the host vehicle relative to the identified target vehicle”).
Regarding claim 3 Shalev-Shwartz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the liability determination information acquisition unit is configured to acquire a relative behavior of the target vehicle as the liability determination information (see at least [0607]; “In some embodiments, an accident liability tracking system for a host vehicle may include at least one processing device programmed to receive, from an image capture device, at least one image representative of an environment of the host vehicle and analyze the at least one image to identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle. Based on analysis of the at least one image, the processor may include programming to determine one or more characteristics of a navigational state of the identified target vehicle. The navigational state may include various operational characteristics of the target vehicle, such as vehicle speed, proximity to a center of a lane, lateral velocity, direction of travel, distance from the host vehicle, heading, or any other parameter that may be used to determine potential accident liability based on any of the rules described above,” the image analysis yields information of the target such as speed, direction, etc. which corresponds to the relative behavior), and
the potential accident liability information determination unit is configured to sequentially determine the potential accident liability information based on the relative behavior of the target vehicle and an accident liability rule at a position where the potential accident liability information is determined (see at least [0611]; “test the planned navigational action against at least one accident liability rule for determining potential accident liability for the host vehicle relative to the identified target vehicle”).
Regarding claim 4 Shalev-Shwartz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the liability determination information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the liability determination information from each peripheral vehicle existing around the liability determination vehicle (see at least [0604]; “Thus, where more than one target vehicle is present, the planned action for the host vehicle may be tested for an accident liability rule sequentially with respect to the target vehicles in an influence zone in the vicinity of the host vehicle (e.g., within 25 meters, 50 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 5 Shalev-Shwartz discloses a potential accident liability determination device (see at least [0599]; “The above-described driving policy system (e.g., the RL system) may be implemented together with one or more of the described accident liability rules to provide a navigational system that takes into account potential accident liability when deciding on a particular navigational instruction to implement”), comprising:
at least one processor (see at least [0659]; “Consistent with this disclosure, a system for navigating a host vehicle is disclosed. The system may include at least one processing device programmed to perform one or more methods, processes, functions, or operations consistent with this disclosure.”); and
at least one memory storing computer readable program code, wherein the computer readable program code, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the potential accident liability determination device to (see at least [0099]; “The memory may store software that, when executed by the processor, controls the operation of the system. The memory may include databases and image processing software”):
acquire liability determination information being information used to determine potential accident liability information indicating whether a liability determination vehicle being a vehicle for which the potential accident liability information is determined is liable for a potentially assumed accident between the liability determination vehicle and a target vehicle selected from surrounding vehicles existing around the liability determination vehicle (see at least [0600]; “Based on the input, the processor may identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle, e.g., by analyzing camera images, LIDAR output, RADAR output, etc. In some embodiments, the processor may identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle by analyzing one or more inputs, such as one or more camera images, LIDAR output, and/or RADAR output. Further, in some embodiments, the processor may identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle based on an agreement of a majority or combination of sensor inputs ( e.g., by analyzing one or more camera images, LIDAR output, and/or RADAR output, and receiving a detection result identifying the target vehicle based on a majority agreement or combination of the inputs)… Based on the information available to the driving policy module, an output may be provided in the form of one or more planned navigational actions for accomplishing a navigational goal of the host vehicle. In some embodiments, the RSS safety constraint may be applied as a filter of the planned navigational actions. That is, the planned navigational action, once developed, can be tested against at least one accident liability rule (e.g., any of the accident liability rules discussed above) for determining potential accident liability for the host vehicle relative to the identified target vehicle,” the information from the host vehicle’s sensors correspond to the potential accident liability determination information, as it is used to determine who would be liable in the potential accident); and
determine the potential accident liability information based on (i) a preset relationship for determining the potential accident liability information from the liability determination information and (ii) the acquired liability determination information (see at least [0599]; “the RSS safety constraint may be applied as a filter layer through which all proposed navigational actions proposed by the planning phase are tested against the relevant accident liability rules to ensure that the proposed navigational actions are in compliance… if the proposed navigational action is not in compliance with the RSS safety constraint (e.g., if the proposed action could result in accident liability to the host vehicle based on one or more of the above-described rules), then the action is not taken.” the rules for determining the liability based on the received sensor information constitutes a relationship between the information and determining liability, if the vehicle’s path is not in compliance with the rules than the vehicle would be liable in the potential accident), wherein
the potential accident liability determination device is installed outside of the liability determination vehicle (see at least [0758]; “The navigation system may be a safety system or any other system disclosed herein. In some embodiments, the system may be fully housed within a host vehicle. In other embodiments, one or more components of the system may be located in a location remote from the host vehicle, such as in a server or other device”).
Regarding claim 6 Shalev-Shwartz discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the computer readable program code further causes the potential accident liability determination device to:
acquire, as the liability determination information, a sensor value that is detected by a sensor provided in the liability determination vehicle and indicates a behavior of the peripheral vehicle (see at least [0607]; “In some embodiments, an accident liability tracking system for a host vehicle may include at least one processing device programmed to receive, from an image capture device, at least one image representative of an environment of the host vehicle and analyze the at least one image to identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle. Based on analysis of the at least one image, the processor may include programming to determine one or more characteristics of a navigational state of the identified target vehicle. The navigational state may include various operational characteristics of the target vehicle, such as vehicle speed, proximity to a center of a lane, lateral velocity, direction of travel, distance from the host vehicle, heading, or any other parameter that may be used to determine potential accident liability based on any of the rules described above,” the image provided by the imaging sensor corresponds to the sensor value);
sequentially determine, based on the sensor value, a relative behavior of the target vehicle selected from the surrounding vehicles with respect to the liability determination vehicle (see at least [0607]; “In some embodiments, an accident liability tracking system for a host vehicle may include at least one processing device programmed to receive, from an image capture device, at least one image representative of an environment of the host vehicle and analyze the at least one image to identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle. Based on analysis of the at least one image, the processor may include programming to determine one or more characteristics of a navigational state of the identified target vehicle. The navigational state may include various operational characteristics of the target vehicle, such as vehicle speed, proximity to a center of a lane, lateral velocity, direction of travel, distance from the host vehicle, heading, or any other parameter that may be used to determine potential accident liability based on any of the rules described above,” the image analysis yields information of the target such as speed, direction, etc. which corresponds to the relative behavior);
acquire an accident liability rule at a position where the potential accident liability information is determined (see at least [0602]; “In some embodiments, the system may test a plurality of potential navigational actions against the at least one accident liability rule,” and [0609]; “As noted, the accident liability rules used as the basis for liability tracking may include any of the rules described above or any other suitable rule. For example, the at least one accident liability rule may include a lateral velocity rule, a lateral position rule, a driving direction priority rule, a traffic light-based rule, a traffic sign-based rule, a route priority rule, etc.,” a rule is acquired and applied to the navigational action); and
sequentially determine the potential accident liability information based on the relative behavior of the target vehicle and the acquired accident liability rule (see at least [0611]; “test the planned navigational action against at least one accident liability rule for determining potential accident liability for the host vehicle relative to the identified target vehicle”).
Regarding claim 7 Shalev-Shwartz discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the computer readable program code further causes the potential accident liability determination device to: acquire a relative behavior of the target vehicle as the liability determination information see at least [0607]; “In some embodiments, an accident liability tracking system for a host vehicle may include at least one processing device programmed to receive, from an image capture device, at least one image representative of an environment of the host vehicle and analyze the at least one image to identify a target vehicle in the environment of the host vehicle. Based on analysis of the at least one image, the processor may include programming to determine one or more characteristics of a navigational state of the identified target vehicle. The navigational state may include various operational characteristics of the target vehicle, such as vehicle speed, proximity to a center of a lane, lateral velocity, direction of travel, distance from the host vehicle, heading, or any other parameter that may be used to determine potential accident liability based on any of the rules described above,” the image analysis yields information of the target such as speed, direction, etc. which corresponds to the relative behavior); and
sequentially determine the potential accident liability information based on the relative behavior of the target vehicle and an accident liability rule at a position where the potential accident liability information is determined (see at least [0611]; “test the planned navigational action against at least one accident liability rule for determining potential accident liability for the host vehicle relative to the identified target vehicle”).
Regarding claim 8 Shalev-Shwartz discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Shalev-Shwartz discloses wherein the computer readable program code further causes the potential accident liability determination device to acquire the liability determination information from each peripheral vehicle existing around the liability determination vehicle (see at least [0604]; “Thus, where more than one target vehicle is present, the planned action for the host vehicle may be tested for an accident liability rule sequentially with respect to the target vehicles in an influence zone in the vicinity of the host vehicle (e.g., within 25 meters, 50 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, etc.).”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20220005291 teaches an on-board computer capable of monitoring and recording vehicle operation data and processing said data to determine the cause of and fault for the accident.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH whose telephone number is (703)756-1982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ASHLEIGH NICOLE TURNBAUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/14/26
Prosecution Insights