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 Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 11/18/2025, for application number 18/409,572 filed on 01/10/2024, in which claims 1-10 were previously presented for examination.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are amended.
Claim 5 is canceled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 11/18/2025 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 08/26/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby (US 2021/0316700 A1) in view of Tarao et al. (US 2021/0031809 A1, hereinafter “Tarao”) further in view of Bonar et al. (US 2010/0124196 A1, hereinafter “Bonar”).
Regarding claim 1, Bielby discloses a control device installed in a vehicle (Bielby at para. [0031]: “vehicle 102 that includes a vehicle computing system 104, a body and controllable parts of the body 106, a powertrain and controllable parts of the powertrain 108, a body control module 110, a powertrain control module 112, and a controller area network (CAN bus) 114 that connects at least the vehicle computing system, the body control module, and the powertrain control module”), the control device comprising:
a memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Bielby at para. [0036]: “a memory of the computing system 104 (e.g., see memory 210 of computing system 204 of vehicle 202 depicted in FIG. 2)”):
communicate with a mobile device located in the vehicle using a wired communication method and a wireless communication method (Bielby at para. [0053]: “the mobile device 302 can be connected to communications network(s) 115 that includes at least a local to device network such as Bluetooth or the like, a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), an intranet, a mobile wireless network such as 4G or 5G, an extranet, the Internet, and/or any combination thereof”; para. [0065]: “the method 400 can begin with receiving, by a computing system of a vehicle ( e.g., see computing systems 104 and 204), a request from a first user of a first mobile device in the vehicle to control at least one electronic of vehicle electronics of the vehicle”; claim 4: “the communication is sent by the first mobile device using a local wired or wireless connection with the vehicle”);
execute traveling control based on a traffic environment around the vehicle (Bielby at para. [0007]: “vehicle electronics can include electronics for vehicular automation. Such electronics can include or operate with mechatronics, artificial intelligence, and distributed systems. A vehicle using automation for complex tasks, including navigation, may be referred to as semi-autonomous”; para. [0017]: “A user, via the mobile device, can also control automated driving configurations and preferences. A user, via the mobile device, can also control various levels of automation according to the SAE”; The autonomous vehicle requires executing traveling control based on a traffic environment around the vehicle); and
cause the mobile device to execute a part of processing of the traveling control (Bielby at para. [0011]: “When a mobile device is securely connected to a vehicle, a portion of a control interface of the vehicle can be extended to the mobile device, allowing a user of the mobile device to operate certain functions of the vehicle from the mobile device”; para. [0065]: “the method 400 can begin with receiving, by a computing system of a vehicle ( e.g., see computing systems 104 and 204), a request from a first user of a first mobile device in the vehicle to control at least one electronic of vehicle electronics of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the at least one electronic of the vehicle electronics can include at least one of engine electronics, transmission electronics, chassis electronics, passenger environment and comfort electronics, in-vehicle entertainment electronics, in-vehicle safety electronics, or navigation system electronics, or any combination thereof. And, in some embodiments, the at least one electronic of the vehicle electronics can include electronics for an automated driving system”).
However, Bielby does not explicitly state wherein
at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
execute first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is available for the traveling control, and
execute second traveling control having more tasks for a driver than the first traveling control without executing the first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is not available for the traveling control,
wherein a condition to determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control includes a case where the control device is not in a state in which the control device can communicate with the mobile device by way of both the wired communication method and the wireless communication method.
In the same field of endeavor, Tarao teaches wherein
at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
execute first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is available for the traveling control (Tarao at para. [0117]: “the CPU 51 determines whether or not the communication state between the manually driven vehicle 14 and the remote controller device 50 is stable”; para. [0118]: “In cases in which the communication state is stable (namely, when step S123: YES), at step S124 the CPU 51 notifies the server device 18 of its approval for remote driving”), and
execute second traveling control having more tasks for a driver than the first traveling control without executing the first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is not available for the traveling control (Tarao at para. [0119]: “In cases in which the communication state is not stable (namely, when step S123: NO), at step S125 the CPU 51 notifies the server device 18 that remote driving is not possible”; para. [0120]: “Following the processing of either step S124 or step S125, the CPU 51 ends the first guidance processing based on the guidance program. The server device 18 then performs the processing of step S107 illustrated in FIG. 8”; The CPU 51 executing ending of the first guidance processing requires starting of manual driving having more tasks for a driver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Bielby by adding the first and second traveling controls as taught by Tarao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao is to provide a safe driving system.
However, Bielby in view of Tarao does not explicitly state wherein a condition to determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control includes a case where the control device is not in a state in which the control device can communicate with the mobile device by way of both the wired communication method and the wireless communication method.
Nevertheless, Bielby and Tarao at least suggest the idea of determining that the mobile device is not available for controlling the vehicle when the mobile device is not connected regardless of the communication method being wired or wireless (see Bielby at para. [0021]; Tarao at para. [0117]-[0119]).
In the same field of endeavor, Bonar teaches wherein a condition to determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control includes a case where the control device is not in a state in which the control device can communicate with the mobile device by way of both the wired communication method and the wireless communication method (Bonar at Abstract: “Systems, software, and apparatuses that provide wired and wireless telecommunications under conditions where signal strength is poor or intermittent”; para. [0114]: “Multiple communication path capability provides additional opportunity for Out Of Band (OOB) transmissions, where data items are exchanged through a communication path other than a preferred path”; para. [0123]: “When a device has multiple communication paths available to it, and one or more of them become unusable for any reason, the device can have the option of switching to a communication path that retains availability”; para. [0135]: “The process begins by building a list of all currently available communication paths (5000)”; para. [0137]: “If the list contains no available communication paths (5010), the process ends with a "no paths available" result (5020). In this case, the device cannot communicate at the current time and location”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao by adding the condition as taught by Bonar with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar is to provide efficient data transmission for a safe driving system.
Regarding claim 2, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar teaches the control device according to claim 1.
Tarao further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the mobile device to execute processing executed in the first traveling control and not executed in the second traveling control (Tarao at para. [0117]: “the CPU 51 determines whether or not the communication state between the manually driven vehicle 14 and the remote controller device 50 is stable”; para. [0118]: “In cases in which the communication state is stable (namely, when step S123: YES), at step S124 the CPU 51 notifies the server device 18 of its approval for remote driving”; para. [0120]: “Following the processing of either step S124 or step S125, the CPU 51 ends the first guidance processing based on the guidance program. The server device 18 then performs the processing of step S107 illustrated in FIG. 8”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar by adding the instructions as taught by Tarao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar is to provide a safe driving system.
Regarding claim 3, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar teaches the control device according to claim 1.
Tarao further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to confirm performance of the mobile device (Tarao at para. [0096]: “As the communication states, the communication state detection section 503 detects whether communication between the vehicle 12 and the remote operation station 16 is stable or whether communication between the vehicle 12 and the remote operation station 16 is unstable”; para. [0117]: “the CPU 51 determines whether or not the communication state between the manually driven vehicle 14 and the remote controller device 50 is stable”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar by adding the instructions as taught by Tarao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar is to provide a safe driving system.
Regarding claim 9, Bielby discloses a method of controlling a vehicle (Bielby at Abstract: “When a mobile device is securely connected to a vehicle, at least a portion of a control interface of the vehicle can be extended to the mobile device”), the vehicle being capable of communicating with a mobile device located in the vehicle using a wired communication method and a wireless communication method (Bielby at para. [0053]: “the mobile device 302 can be connected to communications network(s) 115 that includes at least a local to device network such as Bluetooth or the like, a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), an intranet, a mobile wireless network such as 4G or 5G, an extranet, the Internet, and/or any combination thereof”; para. [0065]: “the method 400 can begin with receiving, by a computing system of a vehicle ( e.g., see computing systems 104 and 204), a request from a first user of a first mobile device in the vehicle to control at least one electronic of vehicle electronics of the vehicle”; claim 4: “the communication is sent by the first mobile device using a local wired or wireless connection with the vehicle”) and executing traveling control based on a traffic environment around the vehicle (Bielby at para. [0007]: “vehicle electronics can include electronics for vehicular automation. Such electronics can include or operate with mechatronics, artificial intelligence, and distributed systems. A vehicle using automation for complex tasks, including navigation, may be referred to as semi-autonomous”; para. [0017]: “A user, via the mobile device, can also control automated driving configurations and preferences. A user, via the mobile device, can also control various levels of automation according to the SAE”; The autonomous vehicle requires executing traveling control based on a traffic environment around the vehicle), and causing the mobile device to execute a part of processing of the traveling control (Bielby at para. [0011]: “When a mobile device is securely connected to a vehicle, a portion of a control interface of the vehicle can be extended to the mobile device, allowing a user of the mobile device to operate certain functions of the vehicle from the mobile device”; para. [0065]: “the method 400 can begin with receiving, by a computing system of a vehicle ( e.g., see computing systems 104 and 204), a request from a first user of a first mobile device in the vehicle to control at least one electronic of vehicle electronics of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the at least one electronic of the vehicle electronics can include at least one of engine electronics, transmission electronics, chassis electronics, passenger environment and comfort electronics, in-vehicle entertainment electronics, in-vehicle safety electronics, or navigation system electronics, or any combination thereof. And, in some embodiments, the at least one electronic of the vehicle electronics can include electronics for an automated driving system”),
However, Bielby does not explicitly state the method comprising:
executing first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is available for the traveling control; and
executing second traveling control having more tasks for a driver than the first traveling control without executing the first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is not available for the traveling control,
wherein a condition to determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control includes a case where the vehicle is not in a state in which the vehicle can communicate with the mobile device by way of both the wired communication method and the wireless communication method.
In the same field of endeavor, Tarao teaches the method comprising:
executing first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is available for the traveling control (Tarao at para. [0117]: “the CPU 51 determines whether or not the communication state between the manually driven vehicle 14 and the remote controller device 50 is stable”; para. [0118]: “In cases in which the communication state is stable (namely, when step S123: YES), at step S124 the CPU 51 notifies the server device 18 of its approval for remote driving”); and
executing second traveling control having more tasks for a driver than the first traveling control without executing the first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is not available for the traveling control (Tarao at para. [0119]: “In cases in which the communication state is not stable (namely, when step S123: NO), at step S125 the CPU 51 notifies the server device 18 that remote driving is not possible”; para. [0120]: “Following the processing of either step S124 or step S125, the CPU 51 ends the first guidance processing based on the guidance program. The server device 18 then performs the processing of step S107 illustrated in FIG. 8”; The CPU 51 executing ending of the first guidance processing requires starting of manual driving having more tasks for a driver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bielby by adding the first and second traveling controls as taught by Tarao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bielby in view of Tarao is to provide a safe driving system.
However, Bielby in view of Tarao does not explicitly state wherein a condition to determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control includes a case where the vehicle is not in a state in which the vehicle can communicate with the mobile device by way of both the wired communication method and the wireless communication method.
Nevertheless, Bielby and Tarao at least suggest the idea of determining that the mobile device is not available for controlling the vehicle when the mobile device is not connected regardless of the communication method being wired or wireless (see Bielby at para. [0021]; Tarao at para. [0117]-[0119]).
In the same field of endeavor, Bonar teaches wherein a condition to determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control includes a case where the vehicle is not in a state in which the vehicle can communicate with the mobile device by way of both the wired communication method and the wireless communication method (Bonar at Abstract: “Systems, software, and apparatuses that provide wired and wireless telecommunications under conditions where signal strength is poor or intermittent”; para. [0114]: “Multiple communication path capability provides additional opportunity for Out Of Band (OOB) transmissions, where data items are exchanged through a communication path other than a preferred path”; para. [0123]: “When a device has multiple communication paths available to it, and one or more of them become unusable for any reason, the device can have the option of switching to a communication path that retains availability”; para. [0135]: “The process begins by building a list of all currently available communication paths (5000)”; para. [0137]: “If the list contains no available communication paths (5010), the process ends with a "no paths available" result (5020). In this case, the device cannot communicate at the current time and location”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Bielby in view of Tarao by adding the condition as taught by Bonar with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar is to provide efficient data transmission for a safe driving system.
Regarding claim 10, Bielby discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a method of controlling a vehicle (Bielby at para. [0031]: “vehicle 102 that includes a vehicle computing system 104, a body and controllable parts of the body 106, a powertrain and controllable parts of the powertrain 108, a body control module 110, a powertrain control module 112, and a controller area network (CAN bus) 114 that connects at least the vehicle computing system, the body control module, and the powertrain control module”), wherein
the vehicle is capable of communicating with a mobile device located in the vehicle using a wired communication method and a wireless communication method (Bielby at para. [0053]: “the mobile device 302 can be connected to communications network(s) 115 that includes at least a local to device network such as Bluetooth or the like, a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), an intranet, a mobile wireless network such as 4G or 5G, an extranet, the Internet, and/or any combination thereof”; para. [0065]: “the method 400 can begin with receiving, by a computing system of a vehicle ( e.g., see computing systems 104 and 204), a request from a first user of a first mobile device in the vehicle to control at least one electronic of vehicle electronics of the vehicle”; claim 4: “the communication is sent by the first mobile device using a local wired or wireless connection with the vehicle”) and executing traveling control based on a traffic environment around the vehicle (Bielby at para. [0007]: “vehicle electronics can include electronics for vehicular automation. Such electronics can include or operate with mechatronics, artificial intelligence, and distributed systems. A vehicle using automation for complex tasks, including navigation, may be referred to as semi-autonomous”; para. [0017]: “A user, via the mobile device, can also control automated driving configurations and preferences. A user, via the mobile device, can also control various levels of automation according to the SAE”; The autonomous vehicle requires executing traveling control based on a traffic environment around the vehicle), and causes the mobile device to execute a part of processing of the traveling control (Bielby at para. [0011]: “When a mobile device is securely connected to a vehicle, a portion of a control interface of the vehicle can be extended to the mobile device, allowing a user of the mobile device to operate certain functions of the vehicle from the mobile device”; para. [0065]: “the method 400 can begin with receiving, by a computing system of a vehicle ( e.g., see computing systems 104 and 204), a request from a first user of a first mobile device in the vehicle to control at least one electronic of vehicle electronics of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the at least one electronic of the vehicle electronics can include at least one of engine electronics, transmission electronics, chassis electronics, passenger environment and comfort electronics, in-vehicle entertainment electronics, in-vehicle safety electronics, or navigation system electronics, or any combination thereof. And, in some embodiments, the at least one electronic of the vehicle electronics can include electronics for an automated driving system”).
However, Bielby does not explicitly state the method includes:
executing first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is available for the traveling control; and
executing second traveling control having more tasks for a driver than the first traveling control without executing the first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is not available for the traveling control,
wherein a condition to determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control includes a case where the vehicle is not in a state in which the vehicle can communicate with the mobile device by way of both the wired communication method and the wireless communication method.
In the same field of endeavor, Tarao teaches the method includes:
executing first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is available for the traveling control (Tarao at para. [0117]: “the CPU 51 determines whether or not the communication state between the manually driven vehicle 14 and the remote controller device 50 is stable”; para. [0118]: “In cases in which the communication state is stable (namely, when step S123: YES), at step S124 the CPU 51 notifies the server device 18 of its approval for remote driving”), and
executing second traveling control having more tasks for a driver than the first traveling control without executing the first traveling control in a case where the mobile device is not available for the traveling control (Tarao at para. [0119]: “In cases in which the communication state is not stable (namely, when step S123: NO), at step S125 the CPU 51 notifies the server device 18 that remote driving is not possible”; para. [0120]: “Following the processing of either step S124 or step S125, the CPU 51 ends the first guidance processing based on the guidance program. The server device 18 then performs the processing of step S107 illustrated in FIG. 8”; The CPU 51 executing ending of the first guidance processing requires starting of manual driving having more tasks for a driver).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Bielby by adding the first and second traveling controls as taught by Tarao with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the medium of Bielby in view of Tarao is to provide a safe driving system.
However, Bielby in view of Tarao does not explicitly state wherein a condition to determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control includes a case where the vehicle is not in a state in which the vehicle can communicate with the mobile device by way of both the wired communication method and the wireless communication method.
Nevertheless, Bielby and Tarao at least suggest the idea of determining that the mobile device is not available for controlling the vehicle when the mobile device is not connected regardless of the communication method being wired or wireless (see Bielby at para. [0021]; Tarao at para. [0117]-[0119]).
In the same field of endeavor, Bonar teaches wherein a condition to determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control includes a case where the vehicle is not in a state in which the vehicle can communicate with the mobile device by way of both the wired communication method and the wireless communication method (Bonar at Abstract: “Systems, software, and apparatuses that provide wired and wireless telecommunications under conditions where signal strength is poor or intermittent”; para. [0114]: “Multiple communication path capability provides additional opportunity for Out Of Band (OOB) transmissions, where data items are exchanged through a communication path other than a preferred path”; para. [0123]: “When a device has multiple communication paths available to it, and one or more of them become unusable for any reason, the device can have the option of switching to a communication path that retains availability”; para. [0135]: “The process begins by building a list of all currently available communication paths (5000)”; para. [0137]: “If the list contains no available communication paths (5010), the process ends with a "no paths available" result (5020). In this case, the device cannot communicate at the current time and location”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Bielby in view of Tarao by adding the condition as taught by Bonar with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the medium of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar is to provide efficient data transmission for a safe driving system.
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar and Ji (US 2023/0234606 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar teaches the control device according to claim 3.
However, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar does not explicitly state wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that the mobile device is available for the traveling control in a case where the mobile device has predetermined performance.
In the same field of endeavor, Ji teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that the mobile device is available for the traveling control in a case where the mobile device has predetermined performance (Ji at para. [0050]: “the controllers 50 may include a controller to support an autonomous driving function”; para. [0055]: “the analyzing device 120 may analyze whether the fault information of each controller is included in the information received from each controller, and whether the response performance of the controller and/or a control amount falls within the reference range”; para. [0063]: “the determining device 140 may determine whether the input values of each controller for a plurality of control parameters selected by the learning device 130 fall within the reference range and determine the controller as being in the abnormal state, when the input value is out of the reference range”; para. [0067]: “A first-phase controller abnormal state may be defined when no controller is abnormal or when a controller has a minor abnormality which does not affect vehicle control”; para. [0084]: “in the first-phase controller abnormal state, the whole control right over the functions for supporting the autonomous driving of the vehicle may be provided to the autonomous driving controller”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar by adding the traveling control unit as taught by Ji with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar and Ji is to provide a safe driving system.
Regarding claim 6, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar teaches the control device according to claim 1.
However, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar does not explicitly state wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
monitor a result of processing of the traveling control by the mobile device, and
determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control in a case where the result of the processing of the traveling control by the mobile device is invalid.
In the same field of endeavor, Ji teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
monitor a result of processing of the traveling control by the mobile device (Ji at para. [0050]: “the controllers 50 may include a controller to support an autonomous driving function”; para. [0055]: “the analyzing device 120 may analyze whether the fault information of each controller is included in the information received from each controller, and whether the response performance of the controller and/or a control amount falls within the reference range”), and
determine that the mobile device is not available for the traveling control in a case where the result of the processing of the traveling control by the mobile device is invalid (Ji at para. [0063]: “the determining device 140 may determine whether the input values of each controller for a plurality of control parameters selected by the learning device 130 fall within the reference range and determine the controller as being in the abnormal state, when the input value is out of the reference range”; para. [0074]: “A third-phase controller abnormal state may be defined when a controller has abnormality which significantly affects vehicle controller”; para. [0087]: “In the third-phase controller abnormal state, the whole control right over the functions for supporting the autonomous driving of the vehicle may be provided to the driver”; One skilled in the art would reasonably infer that the controller is determined to be not available because the whole control right is provided to the driver (see MPEP § 2144.01)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar by adding monitoring the result of processing of the traveling control as taught by Ji with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the mobile device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar and Ji is to provide a safe driving system by determining abnormal state in the driving system.
Regarding claim 7, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar teaches the control device according to claim 1.
However, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar does not explicitly state wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions not to cause the mobile device to execute processing of alternative traveling control for stopping the vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Ji teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions not to cause the mobile device to execute processing of alternative traveling control for stopping the vehicle (Ji at para. [0063]: “the determining device 140 may determine whether the input values of each controller for a plurality of control parameters selected by the learning device 130 fall within the reference range and determine the controller as being in the abnormal state, when the input value is out of the reference range”;[0074]: “A third-phase controller abnormal state may be defined when a controller has abnormality which significantly affects vehicle controller”; para. [0087]: “In the third-phase controller abnormal state, the whole control right over the functions for supporting the autonomous driving of the vehicle may be provided to the driver”; One skilled in the art would reasonably infer that the determining device would not cause the controller to stop the vehicle because the whole control right is provided to the driver (see MPEP § 2144.01)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar by adding the device control unit as taught by Ji with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar and Ji is to provide a safe driving system by determining abnormal state in the driving system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar and Giannella et al. (US 2019/0158581 A1, hereinafter “Giannella”).
Regarding claim 8, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar teaches the control device according to claim 1.
However, Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar does not explicitly state wherein the mobile device acquires, from a device different from the vehicle, data for updating a function for executing processing of the traveling control.
In the same field of endeavor, Giannella teaches wherein the mobile device acquires, from a device different from the vehicle, data for updating a function for executing processing of the traveling control (Giannella at para. [0039]: “The disclosed embodiments may include various remote computing devices communicating, transmitting, and receiving information generated within each process to continually update the control variables, thereby enabling each routine to be dynamically adjusted based on current data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar by adding updating the function as taught by Giannella with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the control device of Bielby in view of Tarao further in view of Bonar and Giannella is to improve computational efficiency and accuracy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 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, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)270-0151. 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.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666