DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 02/04/2026.
Claims 1-18 received on 02/04/2026 are considered in this Office Action.
Claims 1-6, 14 and 17-18 are pending for examination.
Claims 7-13 and 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/01/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Objection for claim 17 is maintained as the claim still recites presenting to an operator image data.
Applicant's arguments regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding a collection unit, a generation unit, a determination unit, a presentation unit, an output unit, an inference unit and a detection unit, these elements are 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, thus invoking claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In response to the Applicant’s amendment, which removed “significant,” rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn. However, the Examiner directs the Applicant’s attention to the newly raised 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection due to the relative terms introduced in the newly added claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments regarding Rejoinder have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 14 is allowable. The restriction requirement among Inventions I, II and III as set forth in the Office action mailed on 06/18/2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is maintained because the nonelected claims do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In response to the Applicant’s amendment and arguments, claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: presenting to an operator image data should read presenting image data to an operator.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) are:
Claims 1 and 14: a collection unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 1, 4-6 and 14: a generation unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 1 and 14: a determination unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claim 1: a presentation unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claims 1 and 14: an output unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claim 14: an inference unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Claim 14: a detection unit (generic placeholder) configured to (function)
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding a collection unit, a generation unit, a determination unit, a presentation unit, an output unit, an inference unit and a detection unit, they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure of processor and CPU and equivalents thereof as supported by FIG. 2 and a portions of of the specification reproduced below:
The autonomous driving control device 20 includes a CPU 21, a memory 22, an operating unit 23, a display unit 24, a storage unit 25, and a communication unit 26 […] The CPU 21 is an example of a processor.
As illustrated in FIG. 2, the CPU 21 of the autonomous driving control device 20 according to the present embodiment serves as a driving data collection unit 21A, a driving trajectory model generation unit 21B, an abnormality level determination unit 21C, a detailed data collection unit 21D, a presentation unit 21E, a driving outcome output unit 21F, a learning unit 21G, and an inference unit 21H.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid 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 1-6 and 17-18 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 terms “unobvious”, “complex” and “appropriate” in claims 1 and 17-18 are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “unobvious”, “complex” and “appropriate” are 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. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret such that (i) an unobvious abnormality in autonomous driving that deviates from planned or optimal driving is determined, which makes it possible to detect a failure of the autonomous driving vehicle that was not noticed by the autonomous driving vehicle itself, or (ii) even in the absence of a failure of the autonomous driving vehicle, an environment that requires unusual and complex driving maneuvers can be detected, and evidence can be shown that the environment is being recognized and driving is being performed with appropriate margins as such that (i) an an environment is being recognized and driving maneuvers is being performed based on the environment.
Claims 2-6 are dependent on claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies thereof, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowed.
Claim 1-6 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14 and 17-18, closest prior arts, NIX (US 20180365913 A1), Mukai (US 20170225689 A1), GYLLENHAMMAR (US 20210394794 A1) and MALTE (DE 102019006537 A1), taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach the claimed invention as a whole.
NIX teaches determining a vehicle failure event occurring during autonomous driving mode (FIGs. 5-7; para. [0152]: “At 802, a computer system determines that a vehicle failure event occurred at an autonomous vehicle. For example, the computing system can include one or more computing devices that are on-board the autonomous vehicle”), requesting a feedback from the human in the vehicle regarding the vehicle failure event (para. [0160]: “providing the interactive user interface at 804 can include providing an interactive user interface that provides a plurality of user-selectable icons that respectively correspond to a plurality of different types of vehicle failure events. Each user-selectable icon can be selectable by the human to provide the feedback indicative of the corresponding type of vehicle failure event”; para. [0161]: “At 806, the computer system receives feedback entered by the human located within the autonomous vehicle”), but fails to specifically teach determine an abnormality level indicating a degree of deviation between the driving trajectory under evaluation and the reference driving trajectory and present to an operator image data, based on which the abnormality level was determined to indicate the presence of an abnormality.
Mukai teaches determining a malfunction of the autonomous driving vehicle based on the difference between predicted behavior and actual behavior of the vehicle (FIG. 9; para. [0089]: “However, in cases where the predicted behavior of the vehicle M based on an instruction issued to the drive source control ECU 82 and the actual behavior of the vehicle M detected by the vehicle sensors 60 differ from each other by more than the preset range, the comparison section 121 determines there to be an abnormality in the drive source control ECU 82.”), but fails to specifically teach present to an operator image data, based on which the abnormality level was determined to indicate the presence of an abnormality.
GYLLENHAMMAR teaches determining a planned driving trajectory (FIG. 3; para. [0057]: “In Action 1001, the trajectory monitoring system 1 determines—e.g. with support from the planned trajectory determining unit 101—in view of a reference system 3, a planned vehicle trajectory 4 adapted to be executed by the vehicle control system 211 during a predeterminable time period T”); determining actual driving trajectory (para. [0059]: “In Action 1002, the trajectory monitoring system 1 determines—e.g. with support from the actual trajectory determining unit 102—following initiation and/or completion of the time period T, an actual vehicle trajectory 5 of the vehicle 2 during the time period T in view of the reference system 3”) and determining the deviation (para. [0012]: “there is determined an accuracy deviation measure indicating deviation between the actual vehicle trajectory and the planned vehicle trajectory, there is identified in view of the reference system, one or more discrepancies between the true vehicle trajectory and the intended vehicle trajectory, which for instance may result from faulty estimations of road geometries—such as due to potholes and/or banking—and/or result from internal errors—e.g. in control loops—of the vehicle control system.”), but fails to specifically teach present to an operator image data, based on which the abnormality level was determined to indicate the presence of an abnormality.
MALTE teaches determining the degree of malfunction based on the difference of the expected and actual trajectories (pg 12: “If it is determined that the trajectory of the vehicle corresponds to a turning direction of the same direction, but to a different degree from the turning trajectory of the lane along which the vehicle is moving, this may result in a less serious type of malfunction depending on the difference in turning degree indicate that no deactivation of the main steering control arrangement, but possibly the support of the auxiliary steering control arrangement requires, so that the main steering control arrangement can control the vehicle correctly”), but fails to specifically teach present to an operator image data, based on which the abnormality level was determined to indicate the presence of an abnormality.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/A.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668