DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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 .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 11/20/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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:
“a sensor configured to detect a surrounding environment of the vehicle to generate surrounding environmental information,” as recited in claim 1.
“a controller configured to control an operation of the vehicle,” as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. 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.
If the 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 § 103
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 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 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0399018A1 (hereinafter, Yang), in view of Yamaguchi JP2008100575A (hereinafter, Yamaguchi).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang describes a vehicle comprising:
-at least one sensor configured to detect a surrounding environment of the vehicle to generate surrounding environmental information (sensor to detect surrounding environments and generate surrounding environment information (e.g., object detection), Yang, Paragraphs 0031-0038);
-a controller configured to control an operation of the vehicle (controller for controlling operation of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0039-0041); and
-a processor (processor of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraph 0030) configured to:
-monitor a status of the vehicle to generate vehicle state information (monitor the status of the vehicle and generating vehicle state information (e.g., monitor sensor information and determine if minimum maneuver is required), Yang, Paragraphs 0071-0073 and Figures 2 and 3);
-determine, during autonomous driving of the vehicle and based on at least one of the surrounding environmental information or the vehicle state information, whether a minimal risk maneuver is required (determining is a minimal risk maneuver is required based on the environmental state information, Yang, Paragraphs 0072-0077 and Figure 3), wherein the minimal risk maneuver comprises controlling of the vehicle for reducing a risk of collision (minimal risk maneuver can include controlling the vehicle in such an action (e.g., steering or stopping the vehicle) to reduce risk of collision, Yang, Paragraph 0076);
-execute, based on the minimal risk maneuver being required, the minimal risk maneuver by causing the controller to control autonomous driving of the vehicle (minimal risk maneuver can include controlling the vehicle autonomously (e.g., steering or stopping the vehicle) to reduce risk of collision, Yang, Paragraph 0076);
-provide, to a user inside the vehicle, an indication of initiation of the minimal risk maneuver (provide user with indication of initiation of the minimal risk maneuver, Yang, Paragraphs 0168-0169);
-turn on, based on the execution of the minimal risk maneuver, an external indicator indicating the execution of the minimal risk maneuver (display an external indicator (e.g., blinker), Yang, Paragraphs 0168-0169); and …
Yang does not specifically disclose the vehicle to include turning off, based on user manipulation of an external indicator button, the external indicator.
Yamaguchi discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Yamaguchi describes a vehicle system wherein the external indicator can be turned on/off via an indicator button (Yamaguchi, Paragraph 0017).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Yang to include turning off, based on user manipulation of an external indicator button, the external indicator, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Yamaguchi.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because encompassing a button to control operations of an indicator allows for desired operator control of the indicator (Yamaguchi, Paragraph 0017).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
-determine, based on the vehicle transitioning into a transition demand (TD) state, whether to execute the minimal risk maneuver (vehicle transitioning into a transition state whether to execute the minimal risk maneuver, Yang, Paragraphs 0051-0053), wherein the vehicle is configured to, in the TD state, provide one or more notifications to the user to take control of the vehicle (notify user to take control of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0060-0063 and 0092);
-determine, based on a determination in the TD state to execute the minimal risk maneuver, an autonomous driving level of the vehicle (determine based on the transition state performing an autonomous driving level of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0050-0053 and 0060);
-monitor, based on the autonomous driving level of the vehicle being greater than or equal to a predetermined automation level, the user; and transition the vehicle to the TD state based on the monitoring of the user indicating that the user is in a drivable state (monitor the autonomous driving level of the vehicle and transition the vehicle to the user only if the user is deemed alert enough to take over control, Yang, Paragraphs 0060 and 0092-0093).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to, after the vehicle transitions to the TD state, provide a first notification to request the user to take control of the vehicle (provide a notification to the user to take control of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraph 0092).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to determine to execute the minimal risk maneuver in the TD state based on failing to obtain information necessary for the autonomous driving of the vehicle (determine to execute the minimal risk maneuver based on failing to obtain information necessary for the autonomous driving, Yang, Paragraphs 0057-0058).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to determine to execute the minimal risk maneuver based on detecting a physical malfunction associated with the autonomous driving of the vehicle (determine to execute the minimal risk maneuver based on physical malfunction of vehicle for the autonomous driving, Yang, Paragraphs 0057-0058).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor further configured to:
-determine, based on the vehicle transitioning into a transition demand (TD) state, whether to execute the minimal risk maneuver (vehicle transitioning into a transition state whether to execute the minimal risk maneuver, Yang, Paragraphs 0051-0053), wherein the vehicle is configured to, in the TD state, provide one or more notifications to the user to take control of the vehicle (notify user to take control of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0060-0063 and 0092);
-determine, based on a determination in the TD state to execute the minimal risk
maneuver, an autonomous driving level of the vehicle (determine based on the transition state performing an autonomous driving level of the vehicle, Yang, Paragraphs 0050-0053 and 0060); and
-transition, based on the autonomous driving level of the vehicle being less than or equal to a predetermined automation level, the vehicle to the TD state (transition based on autonomous driving level, Yang, Paragraphs 0123-0131 and Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the minimal risk maneuver is terminated; and based on the minimal risk maneuver being terminated, clear the indication (vehicle determines if need to act or not act based on detected instance, if the need not to act and the detected instance is no longer detected, the maneuver is terminated and notification cleared, Yang, Figures 2, 9, 16, and 17).
Regarding Claim 10, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to, based on the vehicle having stopped and remaining stationary, determine that the minimal risk maneuver has been terminated (stopping the vehicle and determining that the minimal risk maneuver has been terminated, Yang, Paragraphs 0194-0199 and Figure 15).
Regarding Claim 11, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 17, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 18, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 19, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2023/0399018A1 (hereinafter, Yang), in view of Yamaguchi JP2008100575A (hereinafter, Yamaguchi), in further view of Laur et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2017/0015331 (hereinafter, Laur).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 3.
Yang does not specifically disclose the vehicle to include that the processor is further configured to, based on a predetermined time elapsing after providing of the first notification, provide a second notification to request the user to take control of the vehicle, wherein the second notification has a higher intensity than the first notification.
Laur discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Laur describes a vehicle system that can provide a first and second notification to the user (Laur, Paragraphs 0025-0030 and Figure 2).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the vehicle of Yang to include that the processor is further configured to, based on a predetermined time elapsing after providing of the first notification, provide a second notification to request the user to take control of the vehicle, wherein the second notification has a higher intensity than the first notification, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Laur.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because having a notification system allows for the vehicle to alert the user that manual control is desired and to have the user of the vehicle pay attention to operations of the vehicle (Laur, Paragraph 0003 and 0025-0030).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang, as modified, describes the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the first notification and the second notification comprise at least one of: an auditory alert, a visual alert, or haptic feedback (alert being visual or auditory, Yang, Paragraph 0092).
Regarding Claim 14, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667