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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, including claims 1-3 and 13-21 as outlined in the Requirement for Restriction mailed 9/20/2025, in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4-12 and 22-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim 1 is allowable. The restriction requirement among inventions , as set forth in the Office action mailed on 9/30/2025 , has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 9/30/2025 is partially withdrawn.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11 are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claims require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
However, claims 5, 8, 10, 12, and 22-27 remain withdrawn from consideration because they do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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: “different vehicle recognition unit” and “control switching unit” in claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 13-19; “vehicle information acquisition unit” in claims 4 and 6; “road shape recognition unit” in claim 9; “traffic congestion recognition unit” in claim 19.
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. Corresponding structure for the above-noted limitations is given as an electronic control unit (see at least Figure 2).
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
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to “a computer-readable storage medium storing an automated driving control program”. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this “computer-readable storage medium” could include a transitory form such as a signal. Transitory forms of signal transmission do not fall within any of the statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.03).
Examiner suggests amending the claims to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an automated driving control program.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 13-19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 recites the following (emphasis added):
An automated driving control device configured to enable traveling of a subject vehicle by an automated driving function, the automated driving control device comprising:
a different vehicle recognition unit configured to recognize a front vehicle and a rear vehicle that travel in a lane same as a subject vehicle lane where the subject vehicle travels; and
a control switching unit configured to permit a start of an autonomous traveling control without a periphery monitoring obligation by a driver of the subject vehicle when the different vehicle recognition unit has recognized both the front vehicle and the rear vehicle,
wherein
the control switching unit permits a continuation of the autonomous traveling control even when the different vehicle recognition unit has interrupted a recognition of the rear vehicle after transition to the autonomous traveling control,
recognition of both of the front vehicle and the rear vehicle by the different vehicle recognition unit is included in a start condition of the autonomous traveling control, and
the control switching unit does not satisfy a cancellation condition for canceling the autonomous traveling control due to only an interruption of the recognition of the rear vehicle.
Claim 3 recites the following (emphasis added):
An automated driving control device configured to enable traveling of a subject vehicle by an automated driving function, the automated driving control device comprising:
a different vehicle recognition unit configured to recognize a front vehicle and a rear vehicle that travel in a lane same as a subject vehicle lane where the subject vehicle travels; and
a control switching unit configured to permit a start of an autonomous traveling control without a periphery monitoring obligation by a driver of the subject vehicle when the different vehicle recognition unit has recognized both the front vehicle and the rear vehicle,
wherein
the control switching unit permits a continuation of the autonomous traveling control even when the different vehicle recognition unit has interrupted a recognition of the rear vehicle after transition to the autonomous traveling control, and
the control switching unit
starts the autonomous traveling control based on a start instruction operation by the driver after permitting a start of the autonomous traveling control based on recognition of both of the front vehicle and the rear vehicle, and
starts the autonomous traveling control based on the start instruction operation even when the recognition of the rear vehicle is interrupted until the start instruction operation is performed after permitting the start of the autonomous traveling control.
These limitations, when read in light of the specification and in the context of the entireties of the claims, are not disclosed or rendered obvious by any evidence in the available prior art.
Matsushima (JP 2018188030 A) [note that the English language translation being relied upon herein is attached to this Office action] is considered the closest prior art. Matsushima discloses a driving support system that includes a preceding vehicle recognition part 3 that determines the presence of a front vehicle and a subsequent vehicle recognition unit 4 that determines the presence of a rear vehicle, both traveling in the same lane as the subject vehicle (see page 2). Matsushima teaches autonomous traveling is performed when a front vehicle and rear vehicle are both recognized (see page 3). However, Matsushima does not teach that the autonomous traveling control is continued even when recognition of the rear vehicle is interrupted after transition to the autonomous traveling control mode. Rather, Matsushima teaches in the case the front or rear vehicle recognition is interrupted, control is switched back to manual control (see pages 3-5).
Matsushima discloses: “In addition, the unrecognizable occurrence operation mode switching process in the above embodiment is the automatic operation mode when the unrecognizable occurrence occurs when the preceding vehicle or the following vehicle is recognized using an observation device other than a camera such as a radar device. The switching of the operation mode from the manual operation mode to the manual operation mode can be similarly applied” (see page 6).
These differences between Matsushima and the claimed invention are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any evidence in the available prior art.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 3 are allowed.
Claims 2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 13-19 are allowed based upon their dependency from claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667