DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 7/23/2024.
Claims 1-21 are currently 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are not directed to any of the statutory categories.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding eligibility step 1: claim 13 is directed to “A vehicle control method” which is a process and therefore eligible at step 1
Regarding eligibility step 2A, the following elements are considered to be abstract:
determining, in response to receiving a first command from one of the multiple applications, whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable;
These elements appear to be directed to mental processes and/or mathematical operations because the limitations are drawn to finding information and analyzing that information, which could be done mentally or by hand with pen and paper.
receiving commands from multiple applications;
transmitting a determination result to the one of the multiple applications;
in response to determining that the first command is acceptable, outputting a second command based on the first command to the operation control unit.
steps appear to be directed to adding insignificant generic extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering, receiving or transmitting data).
The “vehicle control device” and “operation control device” of the preamble of the claim appear to correspond to nothing more than generic computer or controller structure directed toward a field of use or technological environment, without improving computer functionality.
Claims 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding eligibility step 1: claim 15 is directed to “A vehicle control method” which is a process and therefore eligible at step 1
Regarding eligibility step 2A, the following elements are considered to be abstract:
determining whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable;
determining whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state, or a command syntax included in the first command
These elements appear to be directed to mental processes and/or mathematical operations because the limitations are drawn to finding information and analyzing that information, which could be done mentally or by hand with pen and paper.
outputting, to an operation control program that controls the control target, a second command that is based on a first command, in response to input of the first command from an application;
transmitting a determination result to the application
steps appear to be directed to adding insignificant generic extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering, receiving or transmitting data).
The “vehicle control device” and “operation control device” of the preamble of the claim appear to correspond to nothing more than generic computer or controller structure directed toward a field of use or technological environment, without improving computer functionality.
Claim Interpretation
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: an input unit to which commands from multiple applications are input in claims 1-12 and 16.
a first management unit receiving a first command transmitted from an application and transmitting a management command, which is determined based on the first command claims 19 -21
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1-12,
The claim recites “an acceptance determination unit determining, in response to a first command being input from one of the multiple applications to the input unit, whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable; a determination transmission unit transmitting a determination result determined by the acceptance determination unit to the one of the multiple applications; and an output unit outputting a second command based on the first command to the operation control unit when the acceptance determination unit determines that the first command is acceptable.”
Regarding Claim 13,
The claim recites “determining, in response to receiving a first command from one of the multiple applications, whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable; transmitting a determination result to the one of the multiple applications; and in response to determining that the first command is acceptable, outputting a second command based on the first command to the operation control unit.”
Regarding Claim 14,
The claim recites “an operation control program that controls the control target, a second command that is based on a first command, in response to input of the first command from an application; an acceptance determination unit determining whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable; and a determination transmission unit transmitting a determination result by the acceptance determination unit to the application,
Regarding Claim 15,
The claim recites “determining whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable; transmitting a determination result to the application; and determining whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state, or a command syntax included in the first command.”
Regarding Claim 16,
The claim recites “a determination transmission unit transmitting a determination result determined by the acceptance determination unit to the one of the multiple applications; and an output unit outputting a second command based on the first command to an operation control unit that controls the control target when the acceptance determination unit determines that the first command is acceptable,
wherein the acceptance determination unit includes a first determination unit that determines whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state, or a command syntax included in the first command.”
Regarding Claim 17,
The claim recites “determining, in response to receiving a first command from one of the multiple applications, whether the first command related to a control target is acceptable; transmitting a determination result to the one of the multiple applications; in response to determining that the first command is acceptable, outputting a second command based on the first command to an operation control unit that controls the control target; and determining whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state, or a command syntax included in the first command.
Regarding Claim 18,
The claim recites “an acceptance determination unit determining, in response to a first command being input from one of the multiple applications, whether the first command related to a control target is acceptable; a determination transmission unit transmitting a determination result determined by the acceptance determination unit to the one of the multiple applications; and an output unit outputting a second command based on the first command to an operation control unit that controls the control target when the acceptance determination unit determines that the first command is acceptable, wherein the acceptance determination unit includes a function of a first determination unit that determines whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state, or a command syntax included in the first command.”
Regarding Claim 19,
The claim recites “a first management unit receiving a first command transmitted from an application and transmitting a management command, which is determined based on the first command:
a second management unit receiving the management command transmitted from the first management unit and transmitting a second command, which is determined based on the management command; and
a third management unit receiving the second command transmitted from the second management unit and controlling the control target based on the second command,
wherein at least one of the first management unit, the second management unit, or the third management unit includes:
an acceptance determination unit determining whether the first command or the second command, which is related to the control target, is acceptable; a determination transmission unit transmitting a determination result determined by the acceptance determination unit to the application; an output unit transmitting a command determined based on a command that is input; and an operation execution unit controlling the control target based on the command that is input.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how to determine any of the determination decisions or steps or how the determination units operate. There is no written content as to how or what specific algorithms are performed (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example)
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
Examples or what decisions are being made such as in paragraphs 0041 and 0042.
A black box such as the service unit described in paragraph 0066 which in itself makes a decision in a undisclosed manner but with no insight as to how.
Another black box in paragraph 0068 that performs internal arbitration with in insight as to how.
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs (Input(s)) and output a value / calculation result / etc. As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I). In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in Limitation which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm as to how this value is generated raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 2024/0412647).
As to claim1 Tanaka discloses a vehicle control system comprising:
at least one vehicle control device (figure 1 #103) controlling a vehicle;
an operation control device disposed separate from the at least one vehicle control device and including an operation control unit that controls a control target included in the vehicle;
an input unit to which commands from multiple applications are input (figure 1#11);
an acceptance determination unit (figure 1 #12) determining, in response to a first command being input from one of the multiple applications to the input unit, whether the first command related to the control target (which corridor to choose, paragraph 0076) is acceptable (paragraph 0076 this unit makes a decision based on all the inputs including the first input);
a determination transmission unit (figure 1 #16) transmitting a determination result determined by the acceptance determination unit to the one of the multiple applications (to the output unit); and
an output unit outputting (figure 1 #17) a second command based on the first command to the operation control unit (160) when the acceptance determination unit determines that the first command is acceptable.
As to claim 2 Tanaka discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein
the acceptance determination unit (12) includes a first determination unit that determines whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state (travelling in a time zone, Paragraph 0077), or a command syntax included in the first command.
As to claim 3 Tanaka discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein
the acceptance determination unit includes a second determination unit (15) that determines whether the first command is acceptable with consideration of a competition between the first command (from the unit 12) and a third command (traffic from the unit 15, paragraph 0084), and
the third command is transmitted from another one of the multiple applications and is different from the first command and the second command (traffic is a different command).
As to claim 4 Tanaka discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 3, wherein
the second determination unit determines whether the first command is acceptable with consideration of whether a processing amount related to the first command and the third command is acceptable (paragraph 0084 and 0085).
As to claim 5 Tanaka discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 4, further comprising
a storage (13) storing a threshold value of the processing amount,
wherein the second determination unit updates the threshold value stored in the storage, and determines whether the first command is acceptable by comparing the processing amount related to the first command and the third command with the threshold value stored in the storage (see figure 8 showing the storage and its comparison to the threshold of the reservations).
As to claim 6 Tanaka discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 3, wherein
the acceptance determination unit (12) includes a first determination unit (12) that determines whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state (the time zone of travel), or a command syntax included in the first command, and
the determination transmission unit includes:
a first transmission unit transmitting (16) a determination result by the first determination unit (12) to the one of the multiple applications (thru the output unit 17); and a second transmission unit (130) transmitting a determination result by the second determination unit to the one of the multiple applications (to the storage unit).
As to claim 7 Tanaka discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 1, further comprising
an operation transmission unit recognizing an operation result indicating whether the control target is operating normally (In normal time or emergency time, paragraph 0105) and transmitting the operation result to the one of the multiple applications (see figure 16).
As to claim 8 Tanaka discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 7, wherein
the operation transmission unit transmits, to the one of the multiple applications (one or more drones), the operation result at regular intervals (to keep them flying correctly) or when a difference between one operation state at a first time point and another operation state at a second time point satisfies a preset condition regarding a specific data item of the control target.
As to claim 9 Tanaka discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 1, wherein
the output unit (17) outputs, to the operation control unit, a plurality of the second commands corresponding to a plurality of the first commands (shown as determination information #160), and
at least a portion of the output unit is divided into multiple sections based on vehicle operation types (to output the multiple control information #160), which correspond to types of the plurality of the first commands.
As to claim 10 Tanaka discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 3, wherein,
when a battery voltage is estimated to decrease to a level lower than an allowable threshold by accepting both of the first command and the third command, the second determination unit determines that the first command is not acceptable. (It is disclosed in paragraph 0004 to determine the command based on the battery voltage.)
As to claim 13 Tanaka discloses a vehicle control method executed by a vehicle control system, the vehicle control system including at least one vehicle control device (figure 34 #400) and an operation control device (figure 1 #10), which is disposed separate from the at least one vehicle control device and includes an operation control unit (output unit #17) for controlling a control target,
the vehicle control method comprising:
receiving commands from multiple applications (usage plan #110);
determining (determination unit #18), in response to receiving a first command from one of the multiple applications, whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable (paragraph 0086);
transmitting a determination result to the one of the multiple applications (the storage unit #13); and
in response to determining that the first command is acceptable, outputting a second command based on the first command to the operation control unit (#17).
As to claim 14 and 15 Tanaka discloses a vehicle control program product stored in a computer-readable non- transitory storage medium, the vehicle control program product being executed by at least one vehicle control device to control a control target, the vehicle control program product comprising instructions that control the at least one vehicle control device to function as:
an output unit (17) outputting, to an operation control program that controls the control target (figure 34), a second command that is based on a first command (the first command being from the determination unit to the output unit), in response to input of the first command from an application (from the determination unit);
an acceptance determination unit (16) determining whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable (see paragraph 0086); and
a determination transmission unit (16) transmitting a determination result by the acceptance determination unit (the same unit within this application) to the application (the output unit is the unit this is being applied to), wherein the acceptance determination unit includes a function of a first determination unit that determines whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state (the state of the traffic paragraph 0086), or a command syntax included in the first command.
As to claim 16 Tanaka discloses a vehicle control system comprising:
at least one vehicle control device (figure 1);
at least one vehicle control device (figure 1 #103) controlling a vehicle;
an operation control device disposed separate from the at least one vehicle control device and including an operation control unit that controls a control target included in the vehicle;
an input unit to which commands from multiple applications are input (figure 1#11);
an acceptance determination unit (figure 1 #12) determining, in response to a first command being input from one of the multiple applications to the input unit, whether the first command related to the control target (which corridor to choose, paragraph 0076) is acceptable (paragraph 0076 this unit makes a decision based on all the inputs including the first input);
a determination transmission unit (figure 1 #16) transmitting a determination result determined by the acceptance determination unit to the one of the multiple applications (to the output unit); and
an output unit outputting (figure 1 #17) a second command based on the first command to the operation control unit (160) when the acceptance determination unit determines that the first command is acceptable.
wherein the acceptance determination unit (figure 1 # 12) includes a first determination unit that determines whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state (the position and speed of the drone, see paragraph 0080), or a command syntax included in the first command.
As to claim 17 Tanaka discloses a vehicle control method implemented by at least one vehicle control device (figure 1), the vehicle control method comprising:
receiving commands from multiple applications (usage plan #110);
determining (determination unit #18), in response to receiving a first command from one of the multiple applications, whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable (paragraph 0086);
transmitting a determination result to the one of the multiple applications (the storage unit #13); and
in response to determining that the first command is acceptable, outputting a second command based on the first command to the operation control unit (figure 34) that controls the control target; and
determining whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state, or a command syntax included in the first command state (the position and speed of the drone, see paragraph 0080).
As to claim 18 Tanaka discloses a vehicle control program product stored in a computer-readable non- transitory storage medium, the vehicle control program product being executed by at least one vehicle control device and comprising instructions that control the at least one vehicle control device to function as:
an input unit to which commands from multiple applications are input (figure 1#11);
an acceptance determination unit (figure 1 #12) determining, in response to a first command being input from one of the multiple applications to the input unit, whether the first command related to the control target (which corridor to choose, paragraph 0076) is acceptable (paragraph 0076 this unit makes a decision based on all the inputs including the first input);
a determination transmission unit (figure 1 #16) transmitting a determination result determined by the acceptance determination unit to the one of the multiple applications (to the output unit); and
an output unit outputting (figure 1 #17) a second command based on the first command to the operation control unit (160) when the acceptance determination unit determines that the first command is acceptable.
wherein the acceptance determination unit (figure 1 # 12) includes a first determination unit that determines whether the first command is acceptable based on at least one of a vehicle equipment, a vehicle state (the position and speed of the drone, see paragraph 0080), or a command syntax included in the first command.
Claim(s) 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wissler et al. (US 2021/0134163).
As to claim 19 Wissler discloses a vehicle control system comprising:
at least one vehicle control device (figure 4b);
an operation control device (figure 4a) controlling a control target and disposed separate from the at least one vehicle control device (figure 4a);
a first management unit (figure 4a #448) receiving a first command transmitted from an application (mission manager 114) and transmitting a management command (flight command), which is determined based on the first command:
a second management unit (446b) receiving the management command transmitted from the first management unit and transmitting a second command (flight command), which is determined based on the management command; and
a third management unit (446c) receiving the second command transmitted from the second management unit (446b) and controlling the control target (flight controller (402c)) based on the second command,
wherein at least one of the first management unit, the second management unit, or the third management unit includes:
an acceptance determination unit determining whether the first command or the second command, which is related to the control target, is acceptable (the commands are used and implemented making them determined acceptable);
a determination transmission unit transmitting a determination result determined by the acceptance determination unit to the application (to the flight controller (402c));
an output unit transmitting a command determined based on a command that is input; and an operation execution unit controlling the control target based on the command that is input (Input into the flight controller to control the various components of the vehicle, paragraph 0109).
As to claim 20 Wissler discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 19, wherein the at least one vehicle control device includes a first vehicle control device (flight controller 402a) and a second vehicle control device(flight controller 402a), the second vehicle control device is separate from the first vehicle control device 9shown in the diagram 4a), the first vehicle control device includes the first management unit (shown in 488), the second vehicle control device (402b) includes the second management unit (446b), and the operation control device includes the third management unit (446c).
As to claim 21 Wissler discloses the vehicle control system according to claim 19, wherein the first management unit (448) includes: a first acceptance determination unit determining whether the first command related to the control target is acceptable (the command is accepted and communicated to the second unit); and a first determination transmission unit transmitting a determination result by the first acceptance determination unit to the application (the command is transmitted to the application which is interpreted as the second vehicle management unit (446b)), and the second management unit (446b) includes: a second acceptance determination unit determining whether the second command related to the control target is acceptable (it is accepted and communicated to the other units); and a second determination transmission unit transmitting a determination result by the second acceptance determination unit to the application via the first management unit (shown in figure 4a that the units transmit commands to and from each other).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747