DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-6 and 8 are amended. Claim 7 is as previously presented. This is a non-final office action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 7/30/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2022-016886 filed in Japan on 02/07/2022.Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 6), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 102 and 103 (presented on p. 6-8), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1, 2, and 8, “the function” should instead read “the selected function” for clarity
In Claim 5, “the value” should instead read “the travel experience value”
Appropriate correction is required.
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. Such claim limitations are:
(a) “a processing unit” of the vehicle which determines occurrence of an erroneous operation of the vehicle, in Claims 1 and 8,
The limitation(s) invoke 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use the generic placeholder “unit” that is coupled with the above functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and without the generic placeholder being preceded by a structural modifier.
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. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(a) specification ¶0046 states that a processing unit may be an integrated circuit or software executed by a processor.
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 2 and 7 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 2, the phrase “determine the ratio such that compounding of the empirical information increases” renders the claim indefinite. As understood by the examiner, the compounding is something that occurs and is not something with some degree or variability such that compounding can be “increased.” It is not clear what it means for compounding of the empirical information to increase, and whether this is intended to be the same as the contribution of the empirical information increasing or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as determine the ratio such that the contribution of the empirical information in the compounding increases.
Regarding Claim 7, the entirety of the claim is indefinite. The claim recites that the “at least one processor” is to determine occurrence of an erroneous operation. However, Claim 1, from which Claim 7 depends, already recites that the processing unit determines occurrence of “an erroneous operation” of the vehicle, based on the same information. It is not clear whether the erroneous operation in Claim 1 and Claim 7 are the same or different, and is not clear whether Claim 7 is stating that the determination of an occurrence of erroneous operation is done twice on different hardware, or whether the task is shared between the processor and processing unit, or whether Claim 7 is stating that the processing unit and the processor are actually the same processor. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting a second determination of occurrence that occurs for a different time.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1-8, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites an electronic control device comprising:
at least one processor coupled with memory, the at least one processor to:
receive an indication of a position of a vehicle;
retrieve, from the memory, according to the position of the vehicle, (i) a first subset of collective information generated from data related to operations of a plurality of vehicles, and (ii) a second subset of empirical information generated from data related to operations of the vehicle;
determine a travel experience value indicative of a number of times the vehicle previously traveled at the position based on the second subset of the empirical information associated with the position;
obtain at least one environment parameter around the position of the vehicle, wherein the at least one environment parameter comprises traffic data including a degree of congestion around the vehicle;
select, according to the degree of congestion around the vehicle, a function from a plurality of functions, each of the plurality of functions representing a relationship between the travel experience value and a ratio for compounding the collective information and the empirical information, wherein, for a same travel experience value, a first function selected according to a higher degree of congestion increases a contribution of the collective information relative to a second function selected according to a lower degree of congestion;
determine, based on the at least one environment parameter and the travel experience value, the ratio for compounding the collective information and the empirical information according to the function;
generate control data for the vehicle using the first subset of the collective information and the second subset of the empirical information that are compounded according to the ratio; and
output the control data to a processing unit of the vehicle, wherein the processing unit determines occurrence of an erroneous operation of the vehicle based on at least the control data for the vehicle and operation information of the vehicle.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing functions to:
receive an indication of a position of a vehicle (a person observing a vehicle position or obtaining a written coordinate or position on a printed map);
retrieve according to the position of the vehicle, (i) a first subset of collective information generated from data related to operations of a plurality of vehicles (for example the person remembering how other vehicles have driven in the particular position, such as a speed on a particular road), and (ii) a second subset of empirical information generated from data related to operations of the vehicle (the person remembering the speed the own vehicle has been driven on the same road);
determine a travel experience value indicative of a number of times the vehicle previously traveled at the position based on the second subset of the empirical information associated with the position (the person remembering how many times the own vehicle has been on the road);
obtain at least one environment parameter around the position of the vehicle, wherein the at least one environment parameter comprises traffic data including a degree of congestion around the vehicle (the person observing traffic congestion or receiving a value representative of traffic congestion amount);
select, according to the degree of congestion around the vehicle, a function from a plurality of functions (the person choosing a table or graph function, one for higher congestion and one for lower congestion), each of the plurality of functions representing a relationship between the travel experience value and a ratio for compounding the collective information and the empirical information, wherein, for a same travel experience value, a first function selected according to a higher degree of congestion increases a contribution of the collective information relative to a second function selected according to a lower degree of congestion (the two table or graph functions being for the ratio of collective and empirical data according to experience value);
determine, based on the at least one environment parameter and the travel experience value, the ratio for compounding the collective information and the empirical information according to the function (the person looking up the ratio value based on the known travel experience amount);
generate control data for the vehicle using the first subset of the collective information and the second subset of the empirical information that are compounded according to the ratio (the person deciding a control value, for example by using a weighted average calculation of the two values based on the ratio data); and
output the control data (the person thinking of, or writing out the control data) and to determine occurrence of an erroneous operation of the vehicle based on at least the control data for the vehicle and operation information of the vehicle (the person comparing observed or received vehicle operation information (such as current speed) against the control data speed to determine erroneous operation such as speeding or driving too slowly).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are an electronic control device comprising: at least one processor coupled with memory, the at least one processor to perform the functions, the retrieving being from the memory, the outputting to a processing unit of the vehicle, and the processing unit determining the occurrence.
For the electronic control device comprising: at least one processor coupled with memory, the at least one processor to perform the functions, the retrieving being from the memory, the outputting to a processing unit of the vehicle, and the processing unit determining the occurrence, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. Additionally, the outputting is the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for basic tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data). The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination does not add anything already present when the elements are considered separately and merely recites input and evaluation and output of data to/from a processor at a high level of generality.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the electronic control device comprising: at least one processor coupled with memory, the at least one processor to perform the functions, the retrieving being from the memory, the outputting to a processing unit of the vehicle, and the processing unit determining the occurrence.
For the electronic control device comprising: at least one processor coupled with memory, the at least one processor to perform the functions, the retrieving being from the memory, the outputting to a processing unit of the vehicle, and the processing unit determining the occurrence, for the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination does not represent an inventive concept and is merely the use of generic computer components for a multi-step process.
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 8, the claim recites the same abstract idea in the form of a method. The new additional elements as compared to Claim 1 are the method executed by an electronic control device comprising at least one processor coupled with memory. These are recitations of generic computer components at a high level of generality and therefore the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-7 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 recites determination of the ratio such that compounding of the empirical information increases as the travel experience value increases according to the function. This is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process as a person can utilize functions with such a property. The claim does not recite any new additional elements.
Claim 3 recites the storing of the functions as a table or curve, which is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process as a person can memorize or utilize tables of curves representing data. The claim does not recite any new additional elements.
Claim 4 recites the travel environment further including road condition, weather or sensor data. This is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process as a person can observe or receive some printed information about the environment. The claim does not recite any new additional elements.
Claim 5 recites determination of a combination ratio to only use the collective knowledge based on travel experience smaller than a value. This is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process as a person can decide to only use the collective information (e.g. drive at a speed recommended by the collective known traffic) when the driver lacks personal experience. The claim does not recite any new additional elements.
Claim 6 recites particular aspects of the function for higher or lower contribution of the empirical or collective data. This is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process as a person can use a table or function with such a property. The claim does not recite any new additional elements.
Claim 7 recites determination of erroneous operation. The determining is further detail of the abstract idea of a mental process as a person can determine a divergence between two things. The claim does not recite any new additional elements.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 101 and Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 112(b), but Claims 1-8 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 8, the most similar prior art, Publication JP2005099930A (Funai) (English description provided with IDS is relied upon for citations) teaches an electronic control device comprising:
at least one processor coupled with memory, the at least one processor to (see [0019, 0021] in-vehicle device 1 having processor and storage, [0080], Figure 11 method performed by in-vehicle device 1):
receive an indication of a position of a vehicle (see [0081] ST41 read traveling position);
retrieve, from the memory, according to the position of the vehicle (see Figure 11 based on ST41), (i) a first subset of collective information (see [0085] receiving (i.e. storing at least temporarily) traveling line information from the center, and [0086] executed for a particular link (subset of all links)) generated from data related to operations of a plurality of vehicles ([0031, 0044-0045] from plural vehicles), and (ii) a second subset of empirical information generated from data related to operations of the vehicle (see [0083-0084] recommended travel line from in-vehicle storage 20, [0050] acquired from past host vehicle data, and [0086] per individual link);
determine a travel experience value indicative of a number of times the vehicle previously traveled at the position (see [0083] whether or not selected link has travel experience (i.e. decision in processor (value) indicative of 0 times or 1+ times)) based on the second subset of the empirical information associated with the position (see [0083] based on travel information from storage unit);
obtain at least one environment parameter around the position of the vehicle (see [0082] ST43 select current traveling condition [0015] e.g. road surface condition or weather);
determine, based on the at least one environment parameter (see Figure 11, ST46/ST47 based on previous ST43) and the travel experience value (see Figure 11, [0083] and based on “whether” there is travel experience at ST45), a ratio for compounding the collective information and the empirical information (see [0084-0085] use of the in-vehicle line or line from the center side at ST46 or ST47, i.e. 100% and 0% ratios. Examiner’s note: per applicant’s specification ¶0034 and Fig. 7, the ratio and compounding includes using only one of the empirical or collective data);
generate control data for the vehicle using the first subset of the collective information and the second subset of the empirical information that are compounded according to the ratio (see [0086] travel line from either in-vehicle or center is data for steering control); and
output the control data to the vehicle, wherein the vehicle operates according to the control data generated from the ratio of the first subset and the second subset (see [0086] operation of steering angle control unit based on the line) and
determine occurrence of an erroneous operation of the vehicle based on the control data and operation information of the vehicle (see [0087] ending process based on route (control data) deviating based on user steering (operation information)).
Patent U.S. 6,246,955 B1 (Nishikawa et al.) teaches a technique to determine whether or not to use collective control data (see 6:25-30 platoon based central control),
the at least one environment parameter comprises traffic data, the traffic data comprising at least a degree of congestion around the vehicle (see 6:28-41, traffic jam present or dissolved),
wherein a contribution of the empirical information in the ratio increases relative to a decrease in the degree of congestion, and a contribution of the collective information in the ratio increases relative to an increase in the degree of congestion (see 6:28-41, traffic jam dissolved, instruction sent to dissolve of platoon, i.e. selection between collective and empirical control based on the degree of congestion).
However, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious a system/method to:
select, according to the degree of congestion around the vehicle, a function from a plurality of functions, each of the plurality of functions representing a relationship between the travel experience value and a ratio for compounding the collective information and the empirical information, wherein, for a same travel experience value, a first function selected according to a higher degree of congestion increases a contribution of the collective information relative to a second function selected according to a lower degree of congestion; and
determine, based on the at least one environment parameter and the travel experience value, the ratio for compounding the collective information and the empirical information according to the function.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the prior rejections are withdrawn. The combination of limitations defining the particular selection, based on congestion, of the recited functions that represent the relationship between the ratio and experience value, combined with the particularly claimed parts is not found or made obvious by the prior art. The combination with the other claim limitations, clearly claimed for a patent, are neither anticipated nor made obvious by the prior arts on record. A search of foreign prior art and Non-Patent Literature was conducted; however, no relevant prior art was found.
As such the claimed subject matter of Claims 1 and 8 would be allowable. The subject matter of Claims 2-7 would also therefore be allowable as being dependent on Claim 1 or Claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571) 272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
