CTNF 18/666,206 CTNF 95478 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim(s) 1 - 5 are pending for examination. This Action is made NON-FINAL. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: CONTROL DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD FOR SUPPRESSING ERRORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE INTENDED TARGET IS CONTROLLED . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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 “an information acquisition unit configured to…” as recited in claim 1, a “a comparison unit configured to…” as recited in claims 1, and a “a control unit configured to…” as recited in claims 1. Because 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 the information acquisition unit the specification states in para [0017] “The processor 201 functions as a remote control unit 210, an information acquisition unit 220, and a comparison unit 230 by executing the computer program PG2.” Thus the structure of the information acquisition unit will be interpreted as processor. Regarding the comparison unit the specification states in para [0017] “The processor 201 functions as a remote control unit 210, an information acquisition unit 220, and a comparison unit 230 by executing the computer program PG2.” Thus the structure of the comparison unit will be interpreted as processor. Regarding the control unit the specification states in para [0059] “C8) In the unmanned driving systems 10 and 10b in the embodiments described above, the comparison unit 230/117 compares the two items of information before the vehicle 100 starts moving, and the remote control unit 210 and the vehicle control unit 115 perform different processes regarding the movement of the vehicle 100 according to the results of the comparison. Optionally, the comparison unit 230/117 may compare the two items of information while the vehicle 100 is moving. The remote control unit 210 and the vehicle control unit 115 may perform different processes regarding the movement of the vehicle 100 according to the results of the comparison. In this case, in the steps S160 and S450 of the confirmation process, the remote control unit 210 and the vehicle control unit 115 may continue moving the vehicle 100. In the steps S168 and S458 of the confirmation process, the remote control unit 210 and the vehicle control unit 115 may stop the movement of the vehicle 100. In the steps S168 and S458 of the confirmation process, the remote control unit 210 and the vehicle control unit 115 may change the running speed of the vehicle 100, for example, by slowing the vehicle 100 without stopping the movement of the vehicle 100, or may lower the upper limit of the running speed of the vehicle 100 without slowing the target vehicle 100.” And in para [0015] “The processor 111 functions as a vehicle control unit 115 by executing the computer program PG1.” para [0017] “The processor 201 functions as a remote control unit 210” Thus the structure of the control unit will be interpreted as processor as the control unit could be considered as the remote control unit or the vehicle control unit. 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 limitation(s) recites 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeung et al. (US 20190384289 A1, hereinafter known as Yeung) in view of Nordbruch (US 10532771 B2) . Regarding Claim 1, Yeung teaches A control device, comprising: an information acquisition unit configured to acquire a first information and a second information, wherein the first information is stored in a first storage unit, wherein the first storage unit is located in a moving object operable by unmanned driving, wherein the first information includes at least one of operation history of the moving object and a feature of the moving object , wherein the second information is stored in a second storage unit, wherein the second storage unit is located outside the moving object, wherein the second information includes at least one of operation history of the moving object and a feature of the moving object ; {Para [0052] “FIG. 3 is a flow diagram illustrating a method 300 for controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle 102 in FIG. 1. In FIG. 3, the sensor 110 on the autonomous vehicle 102 provides a sensing signal to the processor 104 in the autonomous vehicle. In step 302, the processor 104 in the autonomous vehicle 102 then processes the sensing signal to determine a first signal indicative of the environment in which the autonomous vehicle is arranged . The sensor 110 on the autonomous vehicle also inputs the sensing signal to the processor 114 in a remote computing system 112. In step 304, and the processor 114 in the remote computing system 112 then processes the sensing signal to determine a second signal indicative of the environment in which the autonomous vehicle is arranged .” Where both the vehicle and the remote system have processors and memories as shown in fig. 1. The sensor data would inherently have to be cached in someway in order to be processes and therefore would at least temporally be on “storage” of each system. } a comparison unit configured to compare the first information with the second information; and a control unit configured to perform different processes regarding the moving object depending on whether or not the first information matches the second information. {Para [0053] “In the method 300, the first signal is then transmitted from the autonomous vehicle 102 to the remote computing system 112. In step 306, the processor 114 in the remote computing system 112 then compares the first signal with the second signal. The processor 114 may generate the restriction command (described above) to restrict the operation of the autonomous vehicle if the comparison indicates that the first signal and the second signal do not match. Alternatively, if the comparison indicates that the first and second signals match, the processor 114 in the remote computing system 112 generates a control command to the vehicle 102 to control its operation. The control command may be a response to be performed by the autonomous vehicle that is responsive to the environment in which the autonomous vehicle is arranged, as described above.” } Yeung does not teach, wherein the first information includes at least one of operation history of the moving object and a feature of the moving object. And wherein the second information includes at least one of operation history of the moving object and a feature of the moving object; However, Nordbruch teaches wherein the first information includes at least one of operation history of the moving object and a feature of the moving object wherein the second information includes at least one of operation history of the moving object and a feature of the moving object; {Abstract “A method, apparatus, and computer program for localizing a motor vehicle including transmitting via a wireless communication network configured within a parking lot, for a predetermined motor vehicle, a request that the predetermined motor vehicle carry out a predetermined action. After transmission of the request, a check whether a motor vehicle located within the parking lot is carrying out or has carried out the predetermined action. If the result of the check is that a motor vehicle located within the parking lot is carrying out or has carried out the predetermined action, the motor vehicle is authenticated as the predetermined motor vehicle and the predetermined motor vehicle is localized at a current position of the motor vehicle.” Where the first information is a request. The requestion can include operational history and a feature: column 3 “In a further embodiment, provision is made that the predetermined action is an action selected from the following group of actions: activation of one or more elements of a vehicle illumination system, in particular a headlight and/or a fog light and/or a brake light of the vehicle illumination system, and/or a directional indicator; activation of a wiper , in particular a wiper of a headlight; activation of a horn; opening of a motor vehicle door; opening of a motor vehicle window; starting of a drive engine of the motor vehicle, with optional accelerator actuation with the drive train disengaged. “Optional” means that according an embodiment, the accelerator actuation with the drive train disengaged is not provided for. In other words, according to an embodiment provision is made only to start a drive engine of the motor vehicle. “Accelerator actuation with the drive train disengaged” encompasses, for example, the fact that a predetermined minimum engine speed is to be established.” Where the movement of the wiper can be considered as a operational feature and the wiper itself a feature. Where the check can be considered as the second information and includes vehicle operational history and a feature: column 3 “Activation of the wiper has, in particular, the technical advantage that a moving wiper can be detected particularly easily by way of a surroundings sensor. This is because a wiper is a moving object that can be detected or recognized easily and efficiently, for example, in video data.” Where again the operational history is the movement of the wiper and the feature is the wiper itself. } It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yeung to incorporate the teachings of Nordbruch to have the first and second information be operational history or a feature because as discussed in column of Nordbuch “This advantageously makes it possible in particular, even when several motor vehicles are located within the parking lot, to efficiently and reliably identify the predetermined motor vehicle from among the several motor vehicles. This is because motor vehicles for which the request is not meant may receive that request via the wireless communication network, but those motor vehicles do not carry out the predetermined action. Only the motor vehicle that corresponds to the predetermined motor vehicle will carry out the predetermined action in response to reception of the request via the wireless communication network. Motor vehicles that do not carry out the predetermined action therefore cannot correspond to the predetermined motor vehicle.” Additionally as discussed in Yeung para [0048] a mismatch can suggest a cyberattack and thus precautionary actions should be taken to improve safety. Regarding Claim 2, Yeung in view of Nordbruch teaches The control device according to claim 1 . Yeung further teaches wherein when the first information and the second information do not match, the control unit performs at least one of a process of notifying occurrence of abnormality, a process of changing a speed of the moving object, and a process of stopping unmanned driving of the moving object. {Para [0053] “In the method 300, the first signal is then transmitted from the autonomous vehicle 102 to the remote computing system 112. In step 306, the processor 114 in the remote computing system 112 then compares the first signal with the second signal. The processor 114 may generate the restriction command (described above) to restrict the operation of the autonomous vehicle if the comparison indicates that the first signal and the second signal do not match. Alternatively, if the comparison indicates that the first and second signals match, the processor 114 in the remote computing system 112 generates a control command to the vehicle 102 to control its operation. The control command may be a response to be performed by the autonomous vehicle that is responsive to the environment in which the autonomous vehicle is arranged, as described above.” Para [0018] “Preferably, the operation restriction includes at least one of: restricting travel of the autonomous vehicle, stopping the autonomous vehicle, and disabling a function of the autonomous vehicle.” } Regarding Claim 3, Yeung in view of Nordbruch teaches The control device according to claim 1 . Yeung further teaches wherein the moving object acts according to a control commands received from outside the moving object, {Para [0053] “In the method 300, the first signal is then transmitted from the autonomous vehicle 102 to the remote computing system 112. In step 306, the processor 114 in the remote computing system 112 then compares the first signal with the second signal. The processor 114 may generate the restriction command (described above) to restrict the operation of the autonomous vehicle if the comparison indicates that the first signal and the second signal do not match. Alternatively, if the comparison indicates that the first and second signals match, the processor 114 in the remote computing system 112 generates a control command to the vehicle 102 to control its operation. The control command may be a response to be performed by the autonomous vehicle that is responsive to the environment in which the autonomous vehicle is arranged, as described above.” } Nordbruch further teaches and the first information and the second information include history of the control commands transmitted to the moving object. {Where the first information is a request. The requestion can include operational history and a feature: column 3 “In a further embodiment, provision is made that the predetermined action is an action selected from the following group of actions: activation of one or more elements of a vehicle illumination system, in particular a headlight and/or a fog light and/or a brake light of the vehicle illumination system, and/or a directional indicator; activation of a wiper , in particular a wiper of a headlight; activation of a horn; opening of a motor vehicle door; opening of a motor vehicle window; starting of a drive engine of the motor vehicle, with optional accelerator actuation with the drive train disengaged. “Optional” means that according an embodiment, the accelerator actuation with the drive train disengaged is not provided for. In other words, according to an embodiment provision is made only to start a drive engine of the motor vehicle. “Accelerator actuation with the drive train disengaged” encompasses, for example, the fact that a predetermined minimum engine speed is to be established.” Where the movement of the wiper can be considered as a operational feature and the wiper itself a feature. Where the check can be considered as the second information and includes vehicle operational history and a feature: column 3 “Activation of the wiper has, in particular, the technical advantage that a moving wiper can be detected particularly easily by way of a surroundings sensor. This is because a wiper is a moving object that can be detected or recognized easily and efficiently, for example, in video data.” Where again the operational history is the movement of the wiper and the feature is the wiper itself. } Regarding Claim 4, Yeung in view of Nordbruch teaches The control device according to claim 1 . Nordbruch further teaches wherein the first information and the second information include at least one of an exterior feature of the moving object and a performance feature of the moving object. {Where the first information is a request. The requestion can include operational history and a feature: column 3 “In a further embodiment, provision is made that the predetermined action is an action selected from the following group of actions: activation of one or more elements of a vehicle illumination system, in particular a headlight and/or a fog light and/or a brake light of the vehicle illumination system, and/or a directional indicator; activation of a wiper , in particular a wiper of a headlight; activation of a horn; opening of a motor vehicle door; opening of a motor vehicle window; starting of a drive engine of the motor vehicle, with optional accelerator actuation with the drive train disengaged. “Optional” means that according an embodiment, the accelerator actuation with the drive train disengaged is not provided for. In other words, according to an embodiment provision is made only to start a drive engine of the motor vehicle. “Accelerator actuation with the drive train disengaged” encompasses, for example, the fact that a predetermined minimum engine speed is to be established.” Where the movement of the wiper can be considered as a operational feature and the wiper itself a feature. Where the check can be considered as the second information and includes vehicle operational history and a feature: column 3 “Activation of the wiper has, in particular, the technical advantage that a moving wiper can be detected particularly easily by way of a surroundings sensor. This is because a wiper is a moving object that can be detected or recognized easily and efficiently, for example, in video data.” Where again the operational history is the movement of the wiper and the feature is the wiper itself. } Regarding claim 5, it recites a method having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Pertsel (US 11840253 B1) teaches “An apparatus including an interface and a processor. The interface may be configured to receive pixel data of an area external to a vehicle. The processor may be configured to generate video frames from the pixel data, perform computer vision operations on the video frames to detect objects in the video frames and determine characteristics of the objects, analyze the characteristics of the objects to determine a visually observable status of the objects, perform a comparison of the visually observable status to a remote command and send the remote command if the comparison determines that the visually observable status does not match the remote command. The remote command may be configured to control the visually observable status of the objects.” . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MATTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4296. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-6:00. 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 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.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /BRIAN P SWEENEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 2 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 3 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 4 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 5 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 6 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 7 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 8 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 9 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 10 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 13 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 14 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 15 Art Unit: 3668 Application/Control Number: 18/666,206 Page 16 Art Unit: 3668
Prosecution Insights