DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-8 are amended. This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 3/3/2026. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 3/3/2026, 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 Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.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 101 (presented on p. 6-9), 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 Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.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. 9-11), the arguments are not persuasive. The arguments (p. 10) recite some features of JP2005099930A (Funai) and then state that Funai does not contemplate various features of Claim 1. However, no reasoned arguments regarding any specific portion of Funai have been provided. The office maintains that Funai does disclose the features argued, particularly use of specific link data as a subset of all data available for plural links of a route, and the decision to use collective or empirical information as the determination of a 100% or 0% ratio for compounding the information (ST46 or ST47 of Figure 11), based on environment information (as previously obtained at ST43 – see the mapping below for complete rationale). Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 is maintained. However, in view of the complete amendments of all claims, the rejections are updated in view of the additional prior art of Patent U.S. 6,246,955 B1 (Nishikawa et al.) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of Publication JP2005099930A (Funai).
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.
Claim 2-6 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 2, the claim recites the processor being configured to “update the ratio based on changes to the at least one environment parameter around the position of the vehicle.” The disclosure as originally filed appears to only recite “updating “ with respect to the collective knowledge updated periodically, in specification ¶0016. There does not appear to be any description of the updating of the ratio or the ratio being determined repeatedly or continuously. Therefore, the subject matter 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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 2 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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 Claims 1 and 8, the outputting of “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” renders the claims indefinite. As best understood based on the disclosure (Figure 1 and specification ¶0025) and arguments (p. 7-8), the electronic control device that performs the outputting is onboard the vehicle. It is not clear what it means for the outputting to be “to the vehicle,” and whether this is referring to the output of commands from the electronic control device to other components of the vehicle which operate the vehicle, or is referring to outputting the control data to another portion of the algorithm, or whether the electronic control device is intended to be external to the vehicle, or something else. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the limitations are interpreted as the output of control data to another vehicle component and the controlling of vehicle motion by the component.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Regarding Claim 6, the contribution of the empirical or collective information increasing “relative to” a decrease or increase in the degree of congestion renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear whether “relative to” is describing causality (i.e. “relative to” being equivalent to “based on” or “responsive to”) or alternatively whether “relative to” is referring to some relationship between values (such as the change of the contribution being higher or lower than a change in the degree of congestion). The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as any change of the use of collective or empirical information based on traffic congestion.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Publication JP2005099930A (Funai) (English description provided with IDS is relied upon for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Funai discloses 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Funai discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is to:
update the ratio based on changes to the at least one environment parameter around the position of the vehicle (see [0082] traveling condition read and selected again based on switching unit 24a [0026] based on change in environment).
Regarding Claim 3, Funai discloses the electronic control device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is to:
select a function representing a relationship between the value indicative of the number of times the vehicle previously traveled at the position and the ratio (see [0084-0085] the decision of which line to use based on whether travel experience exists is a function that is used (selected for execution) and defines the relationship between travel experience number and the resulting ratio) according to the at least one environment parameter (see Figure 11 according to earlier step ST43); and determine the ratio according to the selected function (see Figure 11 the decision and execution of ST46 or ST47).
Regarding Claim 4, Funai discloses the electronic control device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one environment parameter comprises traffic data, road condition data (see [0021] road surface condition), weather data (see [0021] weather condition), or sensor data from at least one external sensor, the traffic data comprising at least a degree of congestion around the vehicle.
Examiner's note: since the claim uses the conjunction "or," only one of the recited alternatives is necessary in the prior art to read on this claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Funai discloses the electronic control device according to claim 2, wherein when the value is smaller than a predetermined value (see [0085] no travel experience, i.e. smaller than 1), the at least one processor is to:
determine a second ratio to generate the control data using the collective information without the empirical information (see [0085] use of the recommended line from the center side).
Regarding Claim 6, Funai discloses the electronic control device according to claim 4, 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.
Examiner’s note: the claim further narrows the degree of congestion, which was recited in Claim 4 as part of an alternative limitation. Because the prior art reads on a different alternative (the road condition or weather), the further details regarding the degree of congestion are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, an alternative rejection is set forth below.
Regarding Claim 7, Funai discloses the electronic control device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is to:
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)).
Regarding Claim 8, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 1. Claim 8 pertains to a method corresponding to the functions performed by the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 8 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 (in the alternative) and Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication JP2005099930A (Funai) (English description provided with IDS is relied upon for citations) in view of Patent U.S. 6,246,955 B1 (Nishikawa et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Funai discloses the electronic control device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one environment parameter comprises traffic data, road condition data (see [0021] road surface condition), weather data (see [0021] weather condition), or sensor data from at least one external sensor, the traffic data comprising at least a degree of congestion around the vehicle.
Funai does not explicitly recite wherein:
the at least one environment parameter comprises traffic data, the traffic data comprising at least a degree of congestion around the vehicle.
However, 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the environmental conditions of Funai to further include traffic congestion as taught by Nishikawa et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the flexibility of the system to deal with traffic while improving communication efficiency (see Nishikawa et al., 1:64-67).
Regarding Claim 6, Funai does not explicitly recite the electronic control device according to claim 4, 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.
However, Nishikawa et al. teaches the technique as above,
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).
The motivation to combine Funai and Nishikawa et al. was provided in the rejection of Claim 4.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights