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 .
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 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 6, the claims appear to be contradictory in the output step. The claims appear to recite selecting an assistance level, outputting a value for acceleration control, but also stopping the acceleration according to the assistance level, possibly due to a “condition” recited in the claim but with no context. In other words the claim merely states that acceleration is not infinitely applied without any clear step or reason to cause the starting or stopping other than the noted condition, which is not sufficiently described in the claim to allow one having ordinary skill in the art the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation. It is noted this may just be a result of the brevity of the independent claims and possible translation issue causing a disconnect which could be solved through meaningful amendments.
It is further noted that dependent claim 2 does not help the clarity of claim 1. Claim 2 further limits the indefinite “condition” from claim 1 via “stricter condition.” Again there is no context to allow one having ordinary skill in the art the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of a “stricter condition”. It is noted claim 2 also appears to suffer from translation issues.
Claim 3 is also rejected itself for being indefinite as it appears to suffer from the indefiniteness of claim 1 and 2 and appears to have translation issues of its own that should be amended for clarity.
It is further noted that dependent claim 4 also does not help the clarity of claim 1. Claim 4 recites “the one or more processors are configured to stop the output of the specified value, when the condition according to the selected driver assistance level is met, by bringing the selected acceleration request value closer to a predetermined end value as time passes.” This phrasing is also unclear as there is still no recitation on what a condition entails, but the condition is reachable as time passes. The metes and bounds of the recitation are almost limitless thus the claim is also rejected for being unclear.
Accordingly, the claims will be examined as best understood. Claims 2-4 depend from rejected claim 1 and are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0070849).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6, Suzuki discloses a motion manager, method, and computer for a vehicle, the motion manager comprising one or more processors configured to:
receive acceleration request values from a plurality of applications (see at least [0008, 0029], and driver assistance levels associated with the respective acceleration request values (see at least [0028, 0107, 0108;
select a smallest acceleration request value of the plurality of acceleration request values received (see at least [0117] which teaches the scenario where the lower acceleration limit is set);
select a highest driver assistance level of the plurality of driver assistance levels received (see at least 0117, 0118 which teaches a lower limit acceleration and a full override of the user input, which is equivalent to a “highest driver assistance level”); and
while outputting a specified value according to the selected acceleration request value to an actuator of the vehicle, stop the output of the specified value under a condition according to the selected driver assistance level (as best understood, see again at least [0115-0120] which teaches an override of the output by the driver, thus the specified value is “stopped”).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses wherein, regarding stopping the output of the specified value, a stricter condition for stopping the output of the specified value is set when the selected driver assistance level is higher (at least [0099-0103] discloses equivalent “stricter” condition where more assistance is needed).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki discloses the one or more processors are configured to stop the output of the specified value, when the condition according to the selected driver assistance level is met, by bringing the selected acceleration request value closer to a predetermined end value as time passes (as best understood, see figure 9 which illustrates targets being met as a condition at different times, thus meeting the claim limitations)
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would potentially be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is noted that due to the extensive 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues, an exact determination on patentability could not be made at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658