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 .
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara (US 20110202201 A1) in view of Takada et al. (US 20200307519 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Matsubara teaches a vehicle controller loaded on a vehicle including a steering lock mechanism ([0095-0097] and [0457]), the vehicle controller comprising:
a remote operation reception unit configured to receive a remote operation of the vehicle by communication with a communication terminal ([0101] and [0141]); …
a travel start operation recognition unit configured to recognize an operation for starting travel of the vehicle in the vehicle ([0096], [0107], and [0111]);
and a control unit ([0095-0097]) configured to
start a drive source of the vehicle and turn the vehicle to a predetermined standby mode when an activation instruction for the vehicle by the communication terminal is received by the remote operation reception unit ([0148-0149]; [0155] and [0166]) in a state where the steering lock state is recognized by the steering lock recognition unit,
and to stop the drive source when the operation for starting the travel of the vehicle in the vehicle is recognized by the travel start operation recognition unit in the standby mode ([0338-0339], the operation for starting the travel of the vehicle being the moving of the shift lever).
Matsubara further teaches a steering lock ([0457]) that maintains a locked state when the vehicle receives a remote activation instruction ([0465] and [0472], the steering is locked upon the engine remotely starting up and is only unlocked when a driving start operation is performed). However, it does not explicitly teach that the vehicle controller comprises a steering lock recognition unit configured to recognize a steering lock state where a steering of the vehicle is locked by the steering lock mechanism;
In the same field of endeavor, Takada teaches a steering lock recognition unit configured to recognize a steering lock state where a steering of the vehicle is locked by the steering lock mechanism ([0019] and [0036]). Takada uses this recognition unit to determine if the steering lock has successfully engaged or disengaged ([0036]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to combine this recognition unit with the invention of Matsubara to enable the controller to know the steering locked state. As Takada teaches that the state not being recognized is the result of a mechanical failure, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to start a drive source only in a state where the steering lock state is recognized by the steering lock recognition unit to avoid starting the engine in unsafe situations, or as the result of tampering by an unauthorized driver.
As Takada is analogous to the art of systems for controlling the security of a vehicle through its startup, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Matsubara to include a steering lock recognition unit based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure the vehicle controller knows the status of the steering lock. This would allow the controller to determine when mechanical failure of the steering lock occurs or when the steering lock is tampered with, and enables it to control the vehicle accordingly.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Matsubara teaches wherein the travel start operation recognition unit recognizes an operation of a driving operation unit provided in the vehicle, as the operation for starting the travel of the vehicle in the vehicle ([0338-0339]).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Matsubara teaches wherein the travel start operation recognition unit recognizes an operation of a shift lever provided in the vehicle, as the operation of the driving operation unit ([0338-0339], recognizes when “the position of the shift lever is disengaged from ‘P’”).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art remains as applied in claim 2. Matsubara teaches wherein the travel start operation recognition unit recognizes the operation of the driving operation unit ([0253], determines whether the shift is changed from ‘P’ to any other position; [0338]) based on a prediction result of the action of the user by the user action prediction unit. This embodiment of Matsubara discloses that the determination is made if the shift lever is shifted from ‘P’, not based on what position it is shifted to.
This embodiment of Matsubara does not explicitly teach that the vehicle controller comprises a user action prediction unit configured to predict an action of a user who has gotten in the vehicle, and that the operation of the driving operation unit is recognized based on a prediction result of the action of the user by the user action prediction unit.
Matsubara discloses another embodiment that uses the timings of operations of the driving operation unit to determine the driver’s intentions. This embodiment teaches that the vehicle controller comprises a user action prediction unit configured to predict an action of a user who has gotten in the vehicle ([0437] and [0439], operation state detecting unit determines “that the operator does not have a driving intention”). It does this by detecting certain operations, which include “switching operation of the shift lever into a driving range” ([0439]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to combine these embodiments so that instead of the operation state detecting unit determining that the shift lever has been switched to a driving range, it would instead determine when the shift lever has shifted from the ‘P’ position as is performed in the prior embodiment. This would improve the responsiveness of the system, and allow the system to recognize the operation of the driving operation unit based on a prediction result of the action of the user by the user action prediction unit, i.e. the operation state detecting unit, as a shift from ‘P’ would be the recognized operation instead of the shift into a driving range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine the embodiments of Matsubara in the disclosed manner based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the responsiveness of the system by allowing it to stop the drive source when a shift lever is moved from ‘P’ instead of when it is subsequently shifted into a driving range.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 4. Matsubara teaches wherein the user action prediction unit predicts the action of the user based on one of a vehicle interior photographed image of the vehicle by a camera provided in the vehicle, a detection situation of a contact sensor provided in the driving operation unit, and an operation situation of a shift switch provided on a shift lever when the driving operation unit is the shift lever ([0338], [0437], and [0439], driving intention is predicted based on operation of a shift lever according to prior combination of embodiments).
Regarding claim 7, Matsubara teaches a control method of a vehicle including a steering lock mechanism executed by a computer ([0095-0097] and [0457]), the vehicle control method comprising:
a remote operation reception step of receiving a remote operation of the vehicle by communication with a communication terminal ([0101] and [0141]); …
a travel start operation recognition step of recognizing an operation for starting travel of the vehicle in the vehicle ([0096], [0107], and [0111]);
and a control step of starting a drive source of the vehicle and turning the vehicle to a predetermined standby mode when an activation instruction for the vehicle by the communication terminal is received by the remote operation reception step ([0148-0149]; [0155] and [0166]) in a state where the steering lock state is recognized by the steering lock recognition step,
and stopping the drive source when the operation for starting the travel of the vehicle in the vehicle is recognized by the travel start operation recognition step in the standby mode ([0338-0339], the operation for starting the travel of the vehicle being the moving of the shift lever).
Matsubara further teaches a steering lock ([0457]) that maintains a locked state when the vehicle receives a remote activation instruction ([0465] and [0472], the steering is locked upon the engine remotely starting up and is only unlocked when a driving start operation is performed). However, it does not explicitly teach that the vehicle control method comprises a steering lock recognition step of recognizing a steering lock state where a steering of the vehicle is locked by the steering lock mechanism;
In the same field of endeavor, Takada teaches a steering lock recognition step of recognizing a steering lock state where a steering of the vehicle is locked by the steering lock mechanism ([0019] and [0036]). Takada performs this step to determine if the steering lock has successfully engaged or disengaged ([0036]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to combine this recognition step with the invention of Matsubara to enable the controller to know the steering locked state. As Takada teaches that the state not being recognized is the result of a mechanical failure, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to start a drive source only in a state where the steering lock state is recognized by the steering lock recognition step to avoid starting the engine in unsafe situations, or as the result of tampering by an unauthorized driver.
As Takada is analogous to the art of systems for controlling the security of a vehicle through its startup, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Matsubara to include a steering lock recognition step based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure the vehicle controller knows the status of the steering lock. This would allow the controller to determine when mechanical failure of the steering lock occurs or when the steering lock is tampered with, and enables it to control the vehicle accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, Matsubara teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium on which a program for a computer loaded on a vehicle including a steering lock mechanism is recorded ([0095-0097] and [0457]), the program causing the computer to function as:
a remote operation reception unit configured to receive a remote operation of the vehicle by communication with a communication terminal ([0101] and [0141]); …
a travel start operation recognition unit configured to recognize an operation for starting travel of the vehicle in the vehicle ([0096], [0107], and [0111]);
and a control unit ([0095-0097]) configured to
start a drive source of the vehicle and turn the vehicle to a predetermined standby mode when an activation instruction for the vehicle by the communication terminal is received by the remote operation reception unit ([0148-0149]; [0155] and [0166]) in a state where the steering lock state is recognized by the steering lock recognition unit,
and to stop the drive source when the operation for starting the travel of the vehicle in the vehicle is recognized by the travel start operation recognition unit in the standby mode ([0338-0339], the operation for starting the travel of the vehicle being the moving of the shift lever).
Matsubara further teaches a steering lock ([0457]) that maintains a locked state when the vehicle receives a remote activation instruction ([0465] and [0472], the steering is locked upon the engine remotely starting up and is only unlocked when a driving start operation is performed). However, it does not explicitly teach that the vehicle controller comprises a steering lock recognition unit configured to recognize a steering lock state where a steering of the vehicle is locked by the steering lock mechanism;
In the same field of endeavor, Takada teaches a steering lock recognition unit configured to recognize a steering lock state where a steering of the vehicle is locked by the steering lock mechanism ([0019] and [0036]). Takada uses this recognition unit to determine if the steering lock has successfully engaged or disengaged ([0036]).
A skilled artisan would have been able to combine this recognition unit with the invention of Matsubara to enable the controller to know the steering locked state. As Takada teaches that the state not being recognized is the result of a mechanical failure, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to start a drive source only in a state where the steering lock state is recognized by the steering lock recognition unit to avoid starting the engine in unsafe situations, or as the result of tampering by an unauthorized driver.
As Takada is analogous to the art of systems for controlling the security of a vehicle through its startup, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Matsubara to include a steering lock recognition unit based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure the vehicle controller knows the status of the steering lock. This would allow the controller to determine when mechanical failure of the steering lock occurs or when the steering lock is tampered with, and enables it to control the vehicle accordingly.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Takada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du et al. (US 20130268141 A1)
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1. Matsubara teaches wherein the control unit cancels a lock of the steering by the steering lock mechanism ([0425] and [0472]) when an automatic travel instruction for the vehicle by the communication terminal is received by the remote operation reception unit in the standby mode.
Matsubara teaches that the lock of the steering is released when a manual driving operation is performed and/or predicted in the standby mode ([0472]). It does not teach that the control unit cancels a lock of the steering by the steering lock mechanism when an automatic travel instruction for the vehicle by the communication terminal is received by the remote operation reception unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Du teaches a control unit that controls a vehicle when an automatic travel instruction for the vehicle by the communication terminal is received by the remote operation reception unit in the standby mode ([0067] and [0072]). Du further teaches that this automatic travel can include turning left or right ([0045], remote turning signal to “control the vehicle to turn left or right”).
A skilled artisan would have been able to combine these references to enable the vehicle of Matsubara to have the capabilities of automatic travel as taught by Du. When this automatic travel is incorporated into the vehicle of Matsubara, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to release the steering lock in the same manner that the steering lock is released for the manual travel operation of Matsubara. This would allow it to successfully perform the automatic travel operations that require controlling the vehicle steering to turn left or right.
As Du is analogous to the art of remote starting operations for a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Matsubara to include the automatic travel capabilities of Du based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to allow the vehicle to move out of small parking spots. As taught by Du, this allows the vehicle to travel into and out of parking spots that are otherwise too narrow for a driver to safely open or close the vehicle doors ([0049]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK ROBERT BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK ROBERT BREWER/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663