DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
As per Applicant’s response received on 08/07/2026, claims 1-3, and 5-20 are pending; claims 13-20 are new; claims 1-2, 9, and 11 have been amended.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered as below.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 1-3 and 5-12, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) to the claims has been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection to newly added claims 15-17 are discussed below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 to the claims, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejections under 35 USC 103 to the claims have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, ---the second electronic control unit manages--- should read as -- the second electronic control unit is configured to manage--, and ---extracts--- should read as ---extract---
In claim 3, ---the second electronic control unit acquires--- should read as ---the second electronic control unit is configured to acquire---, and ---determines--- should read as ---determine---
In claim 13, --- the second electronic control unit causes--- should read as --- the second electronic control unit is configured to cause---
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, and 5-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12709289 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite all the limitations of the presently pending claims.
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:
“user interface” in claims 1, 3, 14, 19, and 20,
“communication device” in claim 13.
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(a)
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 15-17 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 15, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “automatically collect autonomous driving data based on a predetermined collection condition; and in response to receiving the feedback input, collect autonomous driving data of a driving scene corresponding to the feedback input under a condition broader than the collection condition”. The paragraphs [0023-0024] of the instant specification state a predetermined collection condition to collect driving data. However, the instant specification is silent regarding how to consider a collection is broader than the predetermined collection condition and further how to collect autonomous driving data of a driving scene corresponding to the feedback input under a condition broader than the collection condition. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under this section. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 16, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the second electronic control unit is configured to, in response to receiving the feedback input, specify the driving scene and extract data from among data of a period going back from a time at which the feedback input is received, under the condition broader than the collection condition”. The paragraphs [0023-0024] of the instant specification state a predetermined collection condition to collect driving data. However, the instant specification is silent regarding how to consider a collection is broader than the predetermined collection condition and further how to specify the driving scene and extract data under the condition broader than the collection condition. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under this section. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 17, the Applicant provides the claim limitation, “wherein the second electronic control unit is configured to determine the broader condition based on a history of past feedback inputs or an automatic collection log”. The paragraphs [0023-0024] of the instant specification state a predetermined collection condition to collect driving data. However, the instant specification is silent regarding how to consider a collection is broader and further how to determine the broader condition based on a history of past feedback inputs or an automatic collection log. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under this section. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 15-17 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.
Regarding claim 15, a) it is unclear whether the term “the collection condition” in line 6 is referring to the term “a predetermined collection condition”. B) It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “a condition” and further how to consider a condition is broader to the collection condition. The term “broader” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “broader” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The paragraphs [0023-0024] of the instant specification state a predetermined collection condition to collect driving data. However, the instant specification is silent regarding how to consider a collection is broader than the predetermined collection condition. Therefore, claim 15 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the term “the condition” and further how “the condition” is considered broader than the collection condition. The term “broader” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “broader” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The paragraphs [0023-0024] of the instant specification state a predetermined collection condition to collect driving data. However, the instant specification is silent regarding how to consider a collection is broader than the predetermined collection condition. It is also unclear how to consider the driving scene and extract data under the condition broader than the collection condition. Therefore, claim 16 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 17, the term “broader” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “broader” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The paragraphs [0023-0024] of the instant specification state a predetermined collection condition to collect driving data. However, the instant specification is silent regarding how to consider a collection is broader and further how to determine the broader condition based on a history of past feedback inputs or an automatic collection log. Therefore, claim 17 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 would be allowed upon overcoming the double patenting rejection and the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The available prior art fails to teach or suggest wherein the second electronic control unit is configured to extract, in response to receiving the feedback input, the input value and the instruction value of the electronic control unit corresponding to the specific driving scene, in combination with the further limitations of the independent claims.
Ucar et al. (US 20220019823 A1) teaches, see at least abstract, a method and system for collecting anomalous events in a driving environment based on leveraging inherent human behavior, and uploading driving scene data for at least a time when the inherent human behavior by the occupant of the connected vehicle was detected.
Graefe et al. (US 12198049 B2) teaches, see abstract, a method and system for collecting data response to an object in a driving scene based on identifying a human’s behavior associated with the object in the driving scene.
Hashimoto (US 20230316769 A1) teaches, see abstract, a method and system for generating log data based on a region of interest and a content of the user’s request; wherein the region of interest outside of the vehicle is identified based on the detected gaze location and the information related to the environment surrounding the vehicle.
Cunningham et al. (US 12091042 B2) teaches, see abstract, a method and system for displaying candidate trajectories on a simulated driving scene and receives the user's labels of those trajectories for using as data to train a model for vehicle motion planning.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/TRANG DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
