DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims is as follows:
(a) Claims 8-16 remain pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The Applicant claims benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §120, §121, §365(c), or §386(c).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 09/16/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. §1.97 and §1.98. The Examiner has considered all references, except for any references lined through on the attached IDS form.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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) 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:
“a detection device that detects,” as recited in claim 8.
“a detection device that detects,” as recited in claim 16.
Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not 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.
If the 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.
Claims 13 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.
(a) Regarding Claim 13, the term “the braking control unit” lacks antecedent basis.
(b) Regarding Claim 14, the term “the braking control unit” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimanaka et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0227420A1 (hereinafter, Shimanaka), in view of Ito et al. U.S. P.G. Publication 2022/0135079A1 (hereinafter, Ito).
Regarding Claim 8, Shimanaka describes a driving assistance device (driving assistance device, Shimanaka, Paragraph 0037) comprising:
-a storage medium configured to store computer-readable instructions (storage medium for storing instructions, Shimanaka, Paragraph 0038 and Figure 1); and
-one or more processors connected to the storage medium (processing units, Shimanaka, Paragraph 0038 and Figure 1), the one or more processors execute the computer-readable instructions to:
-refer to an output of a detection device that detects presence of objects in front of a vehicle (detection unit that determines the presence of objects around the vehicle (i.e., radar), Shimanaka, Paragraph 0040), …
-instruct a steering device of the vehicle to avoid contact with the target object by steering, perform a first preliminary operation when the degree of proximity satisfies a second condition (instruction a steering device of the vehicle to avoid contact with a target object (e.g., another vehicle) by performing a first operation when the degree of proximity (i.e., threshold) satisfies a condition (i.e., second condition such as TTC), Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024 and Figure 8),
-perform a second preliminary operation when the degree of proximity satisfies a third condition and it is determined that there is no space in which the vehicle is able to proceed after avoidance by the steering is performed in any of tracks to sides of the target object at a time point when the third condition is satisfied (vehicle can determine if there is any space after a steering operation is performed and then determine if the vehicle can proceed with any other additional paths for steering, Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0112-0132, 0054, and 0083-0091 and Figure 8), the first condition is a condition that is satisfied when the degree of proximity is higher than the second condition, the second condition is a condition that is satisfied when the degree of proximity is higher than the third condition, and the second preliminary operation is an operation, which is started at an earlier timing than the first preliminary operation (first and second condition, wherein the second condition can be a condition that is started at an earlier time than the first (e.g., wheels are steering in the direction of avoidance, so braking to avoid does not have to occur as soon), Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0088-0090).
Shimanaka does not specifically disclose the device to include instruct[ing] a braking device of the vehicle to stop the vehicle when a degree of proximity between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies a first condition.
Ito discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ito describes a vehicle capable of stopping the vehicle when said vehicle determines a condition is met for proximity between an object and the vehicle (Ito, Paragraph 0055 and Figure 4).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Shimanaka to include instructing a braking device of the vehicle to stop the vehicle when a degree of proximity between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies a first condition, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ito.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because instructing a vehicle to stop when a condition is met ensures safer operation of the vehicle (Ito, Paragraphs 0080 and 0087).
Regarding Claim 9, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 8, wherein the second preliminary operation is an operation performed in more stages than the first preliminary operation (second operation can be a steering that is performed in more stages than the first preliminary operation (e.g., braking), Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0112-0132 and Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 8, wherein at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking device is instructed to output to stop the vehicle when a proximity degree between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies a first condition (causing a smaller braking force than first determined when it is determined that the distance between the vehicle and object is greater than a threshold, Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024).
Regarding Claim 11, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 10, wherein at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking device is instructed to output to stop the vehicle when a proximity degree between a target object among the objects and the vehicle satisfies a first condition (causing a smaller braking force than first determined when it is determined that the distance between the vehicle and object is greater than a threshold, Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024).
Regarding Claim 12, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 8.
Shimanaka does not specifically disclose the device to include at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing an output device to perform a display, a voice output, or a vibration output for calling attention.
Ito discloses, teaches, or at least suggests the missing limitation(s). Ito describes the ability to output information calling for attention to the driver (Ito, Paragraph 0160).
As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify the device of Shimanaka to include at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing an output device to perform a display, a voice output, or a vibration output for calling attention, as disclosed, taught, or at least suggested by Ito.
It would have been obvious to combine and modify the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success because displaying information to a driver helps the driver being alert to information (Ito, Paragraph 0160).
Regarding Claim 13, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 8, wherein the second preliminary operation is an operation performed in more stages than the first preliminary operation, and at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking control unit instructs the braking device to output (causing a smaller braking force than first determined, this can be based on stages, such as object being further out after first detected, steering wheel moving in a direction away from the vehicle, etc., Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024 and 0088-0090 and Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 14, Shimanaka, as modified, describes the driving assistance device according to claim 8, wherein the second preliminary operation is an operation performed in more stages than the first preliminary operation, at least one of the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation is an operation of instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking control unit instructs the braking device to output, both the first preliminary operation and the second preliminary operation are operations of instructing the braking device to output a braking force smaller than a braking force that the braking control unit instructs the braking device to output, and a braking force that is initially output in the second preliminary operation is smaller than a braking force that is initially output in the first preliminary operation (causing a smaller braking force than first determined, this can be based on stages, such as object being further out after first detected, steering wheel moving in a direction away from the vehicle, etc., Shimanaka, Paragraphs 0022-0024 and 0088-0090 and Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 15, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Regarding Claim 16, the Applicant’s claim has similar limitations to claim 8 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons set forth by the Examiner in the rejection of said claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J CROMER whose telephone number is (313)446-6563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: ~ 8:15 A.M. - 6:00 P.M..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/ANDREW J CROMER/Examiner, Art Unit 3667