DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 01/10/2024. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and examined below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-7 and 12-13) in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control grasping unit grasping whether a switch from a driving assist control, which requires a periphery monitoring by a driver as an obligation, to an autonomous traveling control, which does not require the periphery monitoring by the driver as the obligation, becomes possible” in claims 1-2 (as information cooperation unit 82 in Fig. 3 and its corresponding paragraphs of the specification); and
“a notification control unit notifying switch possible information indicating that the switch to the autonomous traveling control becomes possible” in claims 1-5 and 12-13 (as presentation control unit 88 in Fig. 3 and its corresponding paragraphs of the specification).
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Step 1: Claims 1-7 and 12-13 are directed to a presentation control device or a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a device or a storage medium (a machine). Step 1: Yes.
Step 2A – prong 1: Claims 1-2 and 6-7 recite the limitation of grasping whether a switch from a driving assist control, which requires a periphery monitoring by a driver as an obligation, to an autonomous traveling control, which does not require the periphery monitoring by the driver as the obligation, becomes possible. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component. That is, other than “by a presentation control device/processor executing instructions from a storage medium” nothing in the claims preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, other than “by a presentation control device/processor/storage medium” language, the claims encompass a person looking at data collected, forming a simple judgement and retaining in the person’s memory. The mere nominal recitation of a “by a presentation control device/processor/storage medium” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, claims 1-2 and 6-7 are directed to mental process. Step 2A – Prong 1: Yes.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Claims 1-2 and 6-7 recite additional elements of a processor that is used to perform grasping (detecting) and notifying steps and a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium that stores the instructions executable by the processor. The processor and the storage medium are recited at a high level of generality, therefore acting as generic computer components to perform the abstract idea. The processor and the storage medium are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacities and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Step 2A – Prong 2: No.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible. Step 2B: No.
Therefore, claims 1-2 and 6-7 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 3-5 and 12-13 do not contain limitations that render them subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, a thorough and complete search has been conducted and no prior art has been found that solely, or in any reasonable combination, reads on “A presentation control device…wherein the notification control unit cancels a notification of the switch possible information when an interruption predicted section exists in a predetermined range defined in a traveling direction of the vehicle from a position where the switch to the autonomous traveling control becomes possible.
Regarding claim 2, a thorough and complete search has been conducted and no prior art has been found that solely, or in any reasonable combination, reads on “A presentation control device…wherein the notification control unit notifies cancellation warning information, which indicates a warning of early cancellation of the autonomous traveling control, together with the switch possible information when an interruption predicted section exists in a predetermined range defined in a traveling direction of the vehicle from a position where the switch to the autonomous traveling control becomes possible.”
In particular, the closest prior arts found to the claims are:
Ito et al. (US 20210024099 A1) discloses the occupant of the vehicle 14 is notified that the vehicle 14 is approaching the prohibited area R and is prompted to switch the driving control of the vehicle 14 from the autonomous automatic driving mode to the manual mode or the remote control mode.
Tsuji et al. (US 20200307642 A1) discloses a notification interface (12) configured to notify a handover request issued by the control unit to a driver of the vehicle; and an intervention detection unit (10, 11, 13, 33) for detecting an intention of the driver to accept the handover request; wherein the autonomous driving includes an autonomous driving mode in which the vehicle is operated without requiring an intervention of the driver at least in regard to steering or acceleration/deceleration of the vehicle, and an autonomous stopping mode in which the vehicle is brought to a stop in a prescribed stop area when it is detected that the control unit or the driver has become incapable of properly maintaining a traveling state of the vehicle.
Harda et al. (US 20170300052 A1) discloses a handover notification arrangement is configured to provide a handover notification in a driver environment of a vehicle having autonomous driving capabilities. The handover notification arrangement includes a road information arrangement configured to acquire road information representative of an upcoming road section at which the autonomous driving is likely to become at least partially disabled. The handover notification arrangement further includes a processing unit configured to calculate an estimated time available for autonomous driving and configured to calculate an uncertainty estimate of the estimated time available for autonomous driving. The handover notification arrangement is configured to cause the output unit to provide the handover notification such that the handover notification is provided earlier in cases of high uncertainty estimates than in cases of low uncertainty estimates. The present disclosure also describes a vehicle and a method of providing a handover notification.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable for the same reasons. Dependent claims 3-5 and 12-13 would also be allowable as they depend upon allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571)272-7298. 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.
/PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665