DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office action is in response to the reply received on 30 March 2026. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending.
Response to Remarks
The statement of disagreement with the interpretation of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is acknowledged, but because there were no detailed arguments presented, the interpretation is maintained.
The amendment and argument regarding the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is acknowledged. However, because the amendment does not remove the claim term "vehicle device" from interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the rejection is maintained.
The amendments and arguments regarding the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 and dependent claims 3-10 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 are acknowledged but are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained. US 2020/0216094 A1 (Zhu et al.) is considered to anticipate all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11, including "receiving a selection signal for a tuning component and a tuning range for generating the tuning map from the user device" and "setting the tuning map based on the selection signal received from the user device". As best understood from the disclosure of the application, the vehicle components being tuned are those which affect the motion of the vehicle, or receive input directly from the driver (Specification para [0045] - "provide the selected tuning map to the vehicle device 300 to remotely perform tuning such as a brake, steering, and suspension, which are driving devices of the vehicle" and para [0055] - "The tuning component may be one or more devices of the vehicle such as the brake, the steering, the suspension, and any device included in the vehicle. The tuning range may be the damping force range of the vehicle's suspension, heavy to light range of the vehicle's steering, the effort range of the vehicle's brake pedal."). Zhu discloses "the driving style input includes data representing vehicle speed, acceleration, braking, and/or steering during operation" (para [0067]), and therefore the driving style of Zhu is considered to be the equivalent of the tuning features of the claimed invention.
Interpretation of Claims Under 35 USC 112(f)
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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:
in claim 11:
"a communicator configured to communicate" (corresponding structure is an element of an electronic device such as a cloud server, the communicator being capable of performing network communications such as 5G, LTE, or Wi-Fi; para [0048]-[0050]);
"a vehicle device configured to control settings" (corresponding structure is not found; the specification discloses a plurality of sensors in para [0046] but does not provide structure for the "control settings" function); and
"a controller configured to perform[,] generate[,] and control" (corresponding structure is one or more processors and memory; para [0053]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
In claim 11, the limitation "a vehicle device configured to control settings for the driving device of the vehicle" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description does not disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In para [0046], the specification discloses the vehicle device may include a plurality of sensors, but the sensors do not perform the function of setting the driving mode of the vehicle. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0216094 A1 (Zhu et al.).
As to claim 1, Zhu discloses a method for setting a driving mode of a vehicle, the method comprising:
performing, by an electronic device, login using a user information received from a user device (para [0030] - "The systems and methods described herein enable a passenger's ride in an autonomous vehicle to be customized based on the driving style of the passenger by storing a driving style model for the passenger in the passenger's smart devices (key fob, smart phone, or others) or in the cloud", para [0065] - "the driving style module 370 [...] may be stored in a memory device such as a fob, smartphone", para [0065] - "the sensors 370 in the autonomous vehicle 310 may recognize the passenger from [...] log in data [...] and automatically download the driving style parameters of the driver");
setting, by the electronic device, a tuning map for setting the driving mode of the vehicle based on a signal received from the user device (para [0065]); and
remotely setting, by the electronic device, the driving mode of the vehicle based on the tuning map (para [0066] - "The parameters of the driving control model stored in the driving control module 370 would then be used by the motion planner 108 to generate the actuation parameters 110 for the autonomous vehicle. In this fashion, the personal driving style module 370 would inject personalized driving style parameters into self-driving cars, family cars, commercial shared cars, taxis, and the like", para [0067] - "the driving style input includes data representing vehicle speed, acceleration, braking, and/or steering during operation"),
wherein the setting of the tuning map comprises:
receiving a selection signal for a tuning component and a tuning range for generating the tuning map from the user device (para [0007] - "the motion planner may adjust the acceleration range (0 to 60 in 4 seconds, 5 seconds, 6 seconds, etc.) based on the passenger's personal driving style preference profile to make an acceleration choice within the safe command range that is consistent with the passenger's personal driving style preference profile"); and
setting the tuning map based on the selection signal received from the user device (Fig 3, para [0007], para [0065] - "The driving style module may be plugged in or the data may be transmitted to the computer 300 via the sensor data input interface 304 of the wireless communication interface 303").
As to claim 3, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses the method further comprising:
when the tuning range received from the user device exceeds a threshold range, setting, by the electronic device, the tuning map based on a tuning range received from at least one expert device (para [0054] - "where the passenger's driving style may conflict with optimal driving practice, the autonomous vehicle would override the driving style model to prioritize the passenger's safety. In sample embodiments, the motion planner provides a driving command with a safe range and the driving style model selects values in the safe range to meet the passenger's preference").
As to claim 4, Zhu discloses the method of claim 3, and further discloses the method further comprising:
getting, by the electronic device, authorization from the at least one expert device to set the tuning map based on the tuning range received from the at least one expert device (para [0054] - "the driving style module 370 may be stored in a fob, the passenger's smartphone, or may be stored in the cloud and accessible upon demand", para [0069] - "the personal driving style module loading mechanism should have sufficient security precautions around an industry standard security protocol").
As to claim 5, Zhu discloses the method of claim 3, and further discloses the method further comprising:
receiving, by the electronic device, at least one tag associated with the set tuning map from the user device and adding, by the electronic device, the tag to the tuning map (Fig 6, para [0054], para [0067] - "the training process may be implemented off-line to create a personalized driving style module 370 that is communicated to the autonomous vehicle 310 for implementation of appropriate control operations during operation").
As to claim 6, Zhu discloses the method of claim 5, and further discloses wherein the setting of the tuning map comprises:
identifying a recommendation condition of the tuning map received from the user device (para [0053] - "the collected driving style data represents the driving conditions when the vehicle is not in autonomous mode. In other words, the collected driving data includes the driving parameters collected when the passenger is driving the vehicle", para [0053] - "The machine learning module 360 receives and processes the driving style data to train a personal driving style decision making model", para [0054] - "The driving style module 370 may remain with the vehicle or may be portable so that the passenger may provide a personalized driving style module 370 to each autonomous vehicle upon taking a ride"); and
identifying a tuning map corresponding to the recommendation condition in at least one tuning map received from one or more of other user devices and at least one tuning map learned using an artificial intelligence algorithm (para [0031] - "object types and locations as well as map-based localization and absolute localization data are provided to a mission planner 104 along with map attributes such as lanes, lane waypoints, mission waypoints, etc. 105 to enable the mission planner 104 to [...] select behaviors", para [0055] - "A machine learning module is an artificial intelligence (AI) decision-making system", para [0066] - "the personal driving style module 370 would be trained and stored in the passenger's mobile phone or key fob and then loaded into the motion planner 108 of the autonomous vehicle before a trip is started. As appropriate, the driving style module could be shared among different passengers of the autonomous vehicle 310").
As to claim 7, Zhu discloses the method of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the identifying of the recommendation condition of the tuning map comprises:
identifying at least one tag stored in the user device as the recommendation condition of the tuning map (para [0067] - "The personal driving style decision-making model is stored at 614 in a memory 616 that may include a key fob, a smartphone, a cloud-based memory device, and the like. At 618, the operation of the autonomous vehicle is controlled using the personal driving style decision-making model for the passenger").
As to claim 8, Zhu discloses the method of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the identifying of the recommendation condition of the tuning map comprises:
identifying a driving data for driving the vehicle associated with the user device as the recommended condition of the tuning map (para [0031]).
As to claim 9, Zhu discloses the method of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the identifying of the recommendation condition of the tuning map comprises:
identifying at least one tag stored in the user device and a driving data for driving the vehicle as the recommended condition of the tuning map (para [0031], para [0067]).
As to claim 10, Zhu discloses the method of claim 6, and further discloses wherein the at least one tuning map received from the one or more of other user devices comprises a feedback information on the tuning map, a tag information set in the tuning map, and a driving data information on the tuning map (para [0031], para [0053] - "the driving data may also include the driving parameters collected during autonomous driving as adjusted by passenger feedback in the form of commands", para [0067]).
As to claim 11, the limitations recited by the claim correspond to the limitations recited by claim 1, and therefore claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
As to claim 13, the limitations recited by the claim correspond to the limitations recited by claim 3, and therefore claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
As to claim 14, the limitations recited by the claim correspond to the limitations recited by claim 4, and therefore claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
As to claim 15, the limitations recited by the claim correspond to the limitations recited by claim 5, and therefore claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
As to claim 16, the limitations recited by the claim correspond to the limitations recited by claim 6, and therefore claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
As to claim 17, the limitations recited by the claim correspond to the limitations recited by claim 7, and therefore claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
As to claim 18, the limitations recited by the claim correspond to the limitations recited by claim 8, and therefore claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
As to claim 19, the limitations recited by the claim correspond to the limitations recited by claim 9, and therefore claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
As to claim 20, the limitations recited by the claim correspond to the limitations recited by claim 10, and therefore claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Todd Melton whose telephone number is (571)270-3871. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays, 9:30am - 6:00pm (Eastern time). 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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/TODD MELTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights