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 . The preliminary amendment has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025 & 6/18/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: planning control model in claim 13 (program code stored on a processor [0035]).
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 3, 10, 16 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.
Claims 3 and 16 recite the limitations “surrounding environment” in two instances. It is unclear if these instances are distinct or the same. For purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as being the same.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “avoidance distance’ and “direction of the lateral decision” in two instances. It is unclear if these instances are distinct or the same. For purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted as being the same.
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 1-2, 4-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). The examiner has identified claims 1-13 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to claims 14-20.
Regarding claim 1 (14 and 20), the claim recites, in part, “… determining a first constraint… determining a second constraint…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of
the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have
been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The additional element of a processor is just a generic computing device. Invocation of generic computing devices to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not
include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology,
apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a
particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a
particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Regarding claims 2, 4-13 ( 14-19), the claims recite, in part, “displaying an image…determining a first dangerous area…displaying an image… constraining a distance… lateral decision… determining an avoidance policy… ” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering and outputting (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of an integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3 and 16 integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Overlaying an image over a live image is essentially augmented reality.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20200365029A1 (“KH”).
As per claims 1, 14, and 20 KH teaches the limitations of the method and products:
A method of autonomous driving by an intelligent device, the method comprising: determining a first constraint of avoidance control based on first information of a target object in a surrounding environment of the intelligent device, wherein the first constraint indicates a first passing area in which the intelligent device avoids colliding with the target object; and determining a second constraint of avoidance control based on second information of the target object, wherein the second constraint indicates a second passing area that is in the first passing area and wherein the intelligent device is away from the target object in the second passing area. (KH at least the abstract, FIGs. 2-7, [0060-0064])
KH does not explicitly refer to a first or second passing area, but instead teaches an occupancy grid with confidence levels capable of being used for a passing operation (KH [0034]). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings of KH to a passing area to improve situational awareness (KH [0034]).
As per claim 11, KH teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. KH additionally teaches: the first constraint and the second constraint are constraint conditions with an attribute of a soft constraint. (KH at least [0033-0038]: “approximate area in which each vehicle 102 can confidently measure this situational awareness information”, [0059]: “ adapt onboard driving or HMI systems 110 based on confidence levels and desired maneuver (e.g., pre-charge brakes, advise to “proceed with caution”).”)
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-9, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KH in view of US20220276655A1 (“Takahashi”).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, KH teaches the invention as described above. KH does not disclose:
displaying an image comprising a location relationship among the intelligent device, the first passing area, and the second passing area.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitation (Takahashi at least [0074-0075], FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to plan for passing (Takahashi [0097]).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, KH in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. KH does not disclose:
obtaining a live image of a surrounding environment of the intelligent device, and displaying the live image; and displaying the first passing area and the second passing area in the live image.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitation (Takahashi at least [0074-0075], [0270]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, KH teaches the invention as described above. KH teaches a location relationship among the intelligent device, a boundary of the first constraint, and a boundary of the second constraint (KH at least FIGs. 6-7). KH does not disclose:
displaying an image comprising a location relationship among the intelligent device, a boundary of the first constraint, and a boundary of the second constraint.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitation (Takahashi at least [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, KH in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. KH teaches determining a first dangerous area indicated outside the boundary of the first constraint; determining a second dangerous area indicated outside the boundary of the second constraint (KH at least [0049], [0059-0060], FIGS. 5-6). KH does not disclose:
displaying an image comprising a location relationship among the intelligent device, the first dangerous area, and the second dangerous area.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitation (Takahashi at least [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, KH teaches the invention as described above. KH does not disclose:
the first constraint comprises constraining a distance between the target object and the intelligent device to be greater than a first preset distance; and the second constraint comprises constraining the distance between the target object and the intelligent device to be greater than a second preset distance, wherein the second preset distance is greater than the first preset distance.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitation (Takahashi at least [0081]: “collision avoidance or shock mitigation of the user's car, following travel based on a vehicular gap”). *Examiner’s note: collision avoidance distance is at least near 0 and smaller than a typical following gap.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, KH teaches the invention as described above. KH teaches speed information (KH [0043], [0048], [0052]). KH does not disclose:
the first information comprises appearance information, and the second information comprises the appearance information and speed information.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitation (Takahashi at least [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, KH in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. KH does not disclose:
the second information further comprises a lateral decision and/or a longitudinal decision of the intelligent device on the target object.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitation (Takahashi at least [0102-0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, KH teaches the invention as described above. KH does not disclose:
determining an avoidance policy of the intelligent device based on the first constraint and the second constraint.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitation (Takahashi at least [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, KH in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. KH does not disclose:
the determining an avoidance policy of the intelligent device based on the first constraint and the second constraint comprises: establishing a planning control model based on the first constraint and the second constraint, wherein the planning control model is configured to output a planned avoidance path, wherein in the planning control model, a penalty coefficient of the first constraint is a first preset threshold, a penalty coefficient of the second constraint is a second preset threshold, and the first preset threshold is greater than the second preset threshold.
Takahashi teaches the aforementioned limitation (Takahashi at least [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Takahashi with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 2.
Claim(s) 4, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KH and Takahashi in view of JP7402756B2 (“Noda”, machine translation provided).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, KH in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. KH does not disclose:
the first passing area is displayed in a first color, and the second passing area is displayed in a second color.
Noda teaches the aforementioned limitation (Noda at least FIG. 6 and " each grid of the occupancy grid map is expressed as an image in which the higher the occupancy value is, the darker the color (higher brightness) is, and the lower the occupancy value is, the lighter the color (lower brightness) is").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Noda with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to “improve the accuracy of the generated stationary object map”.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KH and Takahashi in view of US20190122037A1 (“Russell”).
Regarding claim 10, KH in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. KH does not disclose:
the speed information comprises a speed direction, and the second constraint comprises: increasing an avoidance distance of the lateral decision when a direction of the lateral decision is the same as the speed direction; or decreasing an avoidance distance of the lateral decision when a direction of the lateral decision is opposite to the speed direction.
Russell teaches the aforementioned limitation (Russell at least the abstract, [0023], [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine KH with the aforementioned limitations taught by Russell with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to avoid an area in the contour (Russell [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights