DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the following communication: a non-provisional Application, a Preliminary Amendment, and an Information Disclosure Statement, filed on January 23, 2024. This action is made non-final.
2. Claims 1-6 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 4, and 5 are independent claims; in the Preliminary Amendment, Claim 3 was amended and Claim 6 was added.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. For example, the new title could incorporate “controlling the own vehicle to start in a predetermined manner when a certain first condition is met … while the own vehicle is stopped immediately behind the stopped preceding vehicle,” or similar, in order to be indicative of the claimed invention.
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.
5. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Independent Claim 1 (and similarly, independent Claims 4 and 5) recites “the processor controls the own vehicle to start in a predetermined first manner in the first situation, … and controls the own vehicle to start in a second manner, with less acceleration than the first manner, in the second situation where the second condition is not met at the first point in time but is met at a later second point in time,” but it is not clear what are the limits (if any) to the “later second point in time” – the claim appears to recite that the vehicle will start in the second manner (if the driver is not paying attention when the preceding vehicle starts moving) as long as the driver eventually starts paying attention, but that is a future event that is not known/certain at the time the preceding vehicle starts moving. The claim is indefinite because it would appear that the claim would require the vehicle to start in the second manner in a situation when the driver is asleep when the preceding vehicle starts moving (because the driver will eventually pay attention), but would not start the vehicle if the driver was incapacitated (for example, the driver dies), because the second condition (i.e., paying attention) would not be “met at a later second point in time.” Accordingly, a further clarification is needed in the claim to ensure that “a later second point in time” is not indefinite. The dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 do not appear to cure the above-noted deficiency of independent Claim 1, thus they are also rejected under the same rationale.
Discussion of Prior Art
Claims 1-6 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 (but see § 112(b) rejection, above), because the prior art does not appear to teach, disclose, or suggest the combination of limitations as presented in independent Claim 1 (and similarly, independent Claims 4 and 5), particularly with respect to: “the processor controls the own vehicle to start in a predetermined first manner in the first situation, where a second condition, indicating that the driver was paying attention to the front of the own vehicle, is met at the first point in time when the first condition is met, and controls the own vehicle to start in a second manner, with less acceleration than the first manner, in the second situation where the second condition is not met at the first point in time but is met at a later second point in time.”
For example, the closest prior art, Takafumi (JP 2018-84874A), is directed to automatically starting a vehicle following a start of a preceding vehicle (see ¶ 0001). Takafumi teaches automatically starting the own vehicle after it is determined that the preceding vehicle has started moving (see ¶ 0053). While Takafumi considers the driver’s attentiveness in determining when to automatically start the own vehicle (see ¶¶ 0060, 0063-67, suggesting different start modes based on start permission time), Takafumi does not appear to disclose or suggest “the processor controls the own vehicle to start in a predetermined first manner in the first situation, where a second condition, indicating that the driver was paying attention to the front of the own vehicle, is met at the first point in time when the first condition is met, and controls the own vehicle to start in a second manner, with less acceleration than the first manner, in the second situation where the second condition is not met at the first point in time but is met at a later second point in time,” as recited in Claim 1.
The prior art of Nakadori (US 2017/0259821 A1) is directed towards a driving assistance system that provides a notification based on the behavior of a preceding vehicle (see Abstract). Nakadori teaches that when both the own and the preceding vehicles are stopped, a determination is made when the preceding vehicle starts moving and a notification if provided to the own vehicle’s driver (see Fig. 4, ¶¶ 0053-55). While Nakadori suggests determining a “starting permission,” Nakadori appears to suggest that a notification is provided to the driver when the preceding vehicle resumes moving (see ¶¶ 0035, 0040-42), thus Nakadori is silent with respect to “the processor controls the own vehicle to start in a predetermined first manner in the first situation, where a second condition, indicating that the driver was paying attention to the front of the own vehicle, is met at the first point in time when the first condition is met, and controls the own vehicle to start in a second manner, with less acceleration than the first manner, in the second situation where the second condition is not met at the first point in time but is met at a later second point in time,” as required by Claim 1.
Other prior art of record similarly fails to teach, disclose, or suggest the above-emphasized features, and there does not appear to be any reason to modify or combine prior art references in the manner recited in the independent claims absent the applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DINO KUJUNDZIC whose telephone number is (571)270-5188. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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.
/DINO KUJUNDZIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667