DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed March 19, 2026.
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 Status
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-9 are currently amended.
Claims 3 and 5 are as originally filed.
Claim 7 is canceled.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-9 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a vehicle control unit” in line 11 and again in line 17. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, according to the specification, the claim is interpreted as only reciting one vehicle control unit. Therefore, the language in line 17 is interpreted as reciting “the vehicle control unit” or “said vehicle control unit”. Of note, lines 21 through the end of the claim recite “the vehicle control unit”.
Claim 2 recites “the ID card reading module comprises and is not limited to a second-generation resident ID card reading device…” in lines 5-6. The language of “not limited to” is redundant based on the interpretation of the term “comprises” which is open ended and does not exclude additional elements. See MPEP 2111.03.
Further, the amended language of claim 2 removed the term “or” from “and/or” in line 7 of the claim. This appears to be accidental as the claim is reciting a list of elements. Please confirm the proper use of “and” or “and/or” in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites, starting at line 8, that the driver status monitoring unit monitors a driver emotion and/or a driving behavior and/or a physical fatigue status. However, starting at line 26, states that the driving status of the vehicle is controlled according to an emotion status analysis result, a driving behavior analysis result, and a fatigue status determination result. Therefore, there is a change of scope within the subject matter of claim 1. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation, according to the specification, the claim is interpreted as controlling the driving status of the vehicle according to an emotion status analysis and/or a driving behavior analysis result and/or a fatigue status determination result.
Claim 4 recites “the network communication module comprises one or more of a 5G communication device, a CAN (short for controller area network) bus communication device, a TCP/IP (short for transmission control protocol/internet protocol) communication device, and a Bluetooth communication device”. The phrase “one or more of x, y, and z” is given its plain meaning interpretation of “one or more of x, one or more of y, and one or more of z”. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as the network communication module comprises one or more of a 5G communication device, one or more of a CAN bus communication device, one or more of a TCP/IP communication device, and one or more of a Bluetooth communication device. This interpretation is supported by the specification at page 13, lines 3-7 and page 45, lines 10-14.
Claim 1 recites “government sector management client software/enterprise operation management client software/driver and passenger service client software” on pages 4-5 of the filed claims. The use of the “/” is interpreted as “and/or”.
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:
“a driver identity verification unit… configured to collect…, compare…, and control”,
“a driver status monitoring unit… monitors… and performs”, and
“the remote management unit… cooperates” in claim 1.
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 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 § 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 and 8-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of “a driver identity verification unit… can collect…, compare…, and control”, “a driver status monitoring unit… monitors… and performs”, and “the remote management unit… cooperates” which invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). However, the specification does not define corresponding structure for these limitations. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the ID card reading module comprises and is not limited to…”. The language “not limited to” renders the claim indefinite as the meets and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claim 1 was amended to include the subject matter of canceled claim 7 which was previously identified as containing allowable subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11 of the filed response, the applicant acknowledges the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) with respect to the interpretation according to 35 USC 112(f). However, the applicant does not provide an argument for overcoming the interpretation or rejection under 35 USC 112(b). Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-9 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN W SHERWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-3:00 and 4:00-5:00 EST.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571.270.1210. 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.
/RYAN W SHERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688