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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
National Stage Entry / Effective Filing Date
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/JP2022/015417, filed in Japan on 29 March 2022. As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims are 29 March 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed on 24 September 2024 and 15 April 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following titles are suggested (but not to be construed as being limited to the following options):
Mobile Object Automatic Travel State Limiter Based Upon Detected Surface Condition
Road Surface Based Mobile Object Travel State Controller
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim 1 recites an "external detection device". Paragraph [0019] provides a requisite for understanding; the examiner is not interpreting the aforementioned language as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) term, as it appears to be analogous to reciting a "sensor" or "detector".
The examiner notes that "notification mode" is described in paragraph [0054], for instance.
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 limitations 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 limitations are:
Road type recognizer – claims 1, 4, and 6
Switching operation unit – claims 1-9
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding consideration of a corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, the examiner notes that paragraph [0034] provides a requisite for understanding that the road type recognizer is a sub component of a device that comprises a processor and memory. Thus, for prior art purposes, the examiner will consider any combination of software and/or hardware that performs the noted function to read upon the claim language of note.
Regarding “switching operation unit”, the examiner notes that paragraph [0026] provides a requisite for understanding what may be considered a “switching operation unit”.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 pertains to a method claim, but recites steps "recognize", "move", and "forcibly switch". While the examiner generally understands the intent, method claims should be drafted using the gerundial form of the actions in order to positively/actively claim a step. See US Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Appeal 2010-009623, pages 5-6, wherein the board states "Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the elements of a method claim are method steps, which should usually be verbal (gerundial) phrases, introduced by a gerund or verbal noun (the “-ing” form of a verb).” and "Because the aforementioned claim terms are all nouns (see MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE® DICTIONARY, TENTH EDITION, 1997), their plain meaning does not define a positive or active step with the clarity of a gerund or verbal noun. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification)". In summary, applicant is advised that the steps of claim 8 should be amended to comply with clarity requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9 utilize indefinite terminology. The examiner notes that the independent claims recite "…recognize which type of road the mobile object is moving on, out of the roadway and the predetermined region, on the basis…". The examiner is unsure if "out of the roadway and the predetermined region" is attempting to limit the "type of road" to only the two aforementioned "types", if they are mere examples, or another meaning entirely, but the examiner does not consider the phrase "out of the roadway and the predetermined region" to explicitly limit the "type of road" to the aforementioned two options and thus interprets "type" broadly. Paragraph [0035] states "…the road type recognizer 120 recognizes which type of road the mobile object 1 is moving on, for example, a roadway or sidewalk…". Thus, the term "type" is not explicitly limited to merely a roadway or sidewalk, and the examiner must contemplate what other surfaces, delineating factors (roughness, coefficient of friction, dry versus wet, etc.), among others may constitute a "type" of surface. For written description purposes, the examiner notes that "predetermined region" has support in paragraph [0017] but is not particularly limited to the examples provided. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Therefore, the examiner notes that this phrase is indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
As all independent claims (1, 8, and 9) are rejected for indefinite claim language, the claims which depend upon them are rejected as well. Therefore, all pending claims (1-9) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Claim 9 recites:
A storage medium having a program stored therein, the program causing a computer that controls a mobile object which one or more occupants are on board and which is movable both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway to:
recognize which type of road the mobile object is moving on, out of the roadway and the predetermined region, on the basis of an output of an external detection device that detects an outside situation of the mobile object;
move the mobile object in either a first travel state in which a speed of the mobile object is limited to a first speed or a second travel state in which the speed of the mobile object is limited to a second speed lower than the first speed on the basis of the recognized road type;
move the mobile object in the first travel state in a case where it is recognized that the mobile object is moving on the roadway;
move the mobile object in the second travel state in a case where it is recognized that the mobile object is moving in the predetermined region; and
forcibly switch the travel state under control even in a case where it is recognized that the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region when an operation for switching the travel state is performed by a switching operation unit that accepts a switching operation of the travel state performed by the occupant.
Paragraph 0034 states that the program “may be stored in a detachable storage medium” but does not explicitly recite that the storage medium is non-transitory. Since the specification is silent regarding non-transitory signals, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that claim 9 covers both transitory and non-transitory mediums. Therefore, it fails step 1 of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989)(during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage device (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C.j101, Aug. 24,2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and nontransitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. CJ: Animals -Patentability, 1 077 0)Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 5 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Applicant is recommended to amend claim 9 to specify a “non-transitory” computer readable storage medium.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,479.
Instant Application
18/850,222
Reference US Patent
US 12,240,479 B2
1. A device for controlling a mobile object which one or more occupants are on board and which is movable both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway, the device comprising:
1. A mobile object control device for a mobile object capable of moving on both a roadway and a sidewalk, comprising:
a road type recognizer configured to recognize which type of road the mobile object is moving on, out of the roadway and the predetermined region, on the basis of an output of an external detection device that detects an outside situation of the mobile object; and
acquire information indicating a road situation of the roadway in a traveling direction of the mobile object which is moving on the roadway;
recognize whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or the sidewalk;
a controller configured to move the mobile object in either a first travel state in which a speed of the mobile object is limited to a first speed or a second travel state in which the speed of the mobile object is limited to a second speed lower than the first speed on the basis of the road type recognized by the road type recognizer,
wherein the controller
moves the mobile object in the first travel state in a case where it is recognized that the mobile object is moving on the roadway,
moves the mobile object in the second travel state in a case where it is recognized that the mobile object is moving in the predetermined region, and
a storage device storing a program; and a hardware processor, wherein the hardware processor executes the program stored in the storage device to:
control the speed of the mobile object at least partially; limit a speed at which the mobile object is moving on the roadway to a first speed; limit a speed at which the mobile object is moving on the sidewalk to a second speed slower than the first speed; and
forcibly switches the travel state under control even in a case where it is recognized that the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region when an operation for switching the travel state is performed by a switching operation unit that accepts a switching operation of the travel state performed by the occupant.
9. The mobile object control device according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processor recognizes whether the mobile object is moving on the roadway or the sidewalk based on a manipulation of an occupant of the mobile object on a switch provided inside the mobile object.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that the claim of the instant application is merely a broader form of claims 1 and 9 of the reference US Patent. While claim 1 of the instant application is used as a reference, claim 11 of the US Patent corresponds to Claim 8 of the instant application. Claim 9 is an obvious modification of the method of claim 11, as performance of a method in the form of a computer program housed in memory is old and well known. Therefore, while claim 1 of the instant application is used above as an example, analogous arguments shown above apply to the other independent claims (claims 8 and 9). As such, Claims 8-9 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being obvious over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,479.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nangeroni et al. (US 2019/0383627 A1; published 19 December 2019, hereinafter Nangeroni).
Regarding independent claims 1 (device), 8 (method), and 9 (storage medium): Nangeroni discloses A device for controlling a mobile object which one or more occupants are on board and which is movable both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway, the device comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0064] and Figure [1-2], Nangeroni discloses a system/device for controlling vehicle operation, the vehicle configured to support drivers/riders/passengers. The vehicle may operate on a plurality of road types, including a road and a sidewalk) / A method for controlling a mobile object, comprising causing a computer that controls a mobile object which one or more occupants are on board and which is movable both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway to: (per claim 8) (Paragraph [0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0064] and Figure [1-2], Nangeroni discloses a method for controlling vehicle operation, the vehicle configured to support drivers/riders/passengers. The vehicle may operate on a plurality of road types, including a road and a sidewalk) / A storage medium having a program stored therein, the program causing a computer that controls a mobile object which one or more occupants are on board and which is movable both on a roadway and in a predetermined region different from the roadway to: (per claim 9) (Paragraph [0022-0023, 0031-0032, 0042, 0064, 0163] and Figure [1-2], Nangeroni discloses a method embodied in a computer readable medium for controlling vehicle operation, the vehicle configured to support drivers/riders/passengers. The vehicle may operate on a plurality of road types, including a road and a sidewalk)
a road type recognizer configured to recognize which type of road the mobile object is moving on, out of the roadway and the predetermined region, on the basis of an output of an external detection device that detects an outside situation of the mobile object; and (per claim 1) / recognize which type of road the mobile object is moving on, out of the roadway and the predetermined region, on the basis of an output of an external detection device that detects an outside situation of the mobile object; (per claims 8 and 9) (Paragraph [0035, 0064], Nangeroni discloses sensors to detect vehicle parameters, the vehicle parameters including vehicle operation parameters, the vehicle operation parameters including “location type and/or classification of the path on which the vehicle is operating, such as the roadway type”)
a controller configured to move the mobile object in either a first travel state in which a speed of the mobile object is limited to a first speed or a second travel state in which the speed of the mobile object is limited to a second speed lower than the first speed on the basis of the road type recognized by the road type recognizer, wherein the controller (per claim 1) / move the mobile object in either a first travel state in which a speed of the mobile object is limited to a first speed or a second travel state in which the speed of the mobile object is limited to a second speed lower than the first speed on the basis of the recognized road type; (per claims 8 and 9) (Paragraph [0031, 0041, 0064, 0066, 0069], Nangeroni discloses control of the vehicle with components including a computing system to perform control of vehicle operation parameters, such as speed. Speed of the vehicle can be limited dependent upon detected location/surface type, limiting the speed to a lower value in certain areas)
move[s] the mobile object in the first travel state in a case where it is recognized that the mobile object is moving on the roadway, (per claims 1, 8, and 9) (Paragraph [0066, 0069], Nangeroni discloses a maximum speed allowed for normal operation, dependent upon roadway type (driving on a roadway))
move[s] the mobile object in the second travel state in a case where it is recognized that the mobile object is moving in the predetermined region, and (per claims 1, 8, and 9) (Paragraph [0066, 0069], Nangeroni discloses a more limited travel speed that is less than the standard maximum speed when operating on a type other than the permitted roadway type, such as a sidewalk)
forcibly switch[es] the travel state under control even in a case where it is recognized that the mobile object is moving on the roadway or in the predetermined region when an operation for switching the travel state is performed by a switching operation unit that accepts a switching operation of the travel state performed by the occupant. (per claims 1, 8, and 9) Paragraph [0068-0069, 0146-0148], Nangeroni discloses that “when the vehicle is operating on a roadway type other than the permitted roadway types (e.g. … such as sidewalk…), then the vehicle operation responses can restrict vehicle operation parameters, such as to limit the vehicle’s maximum speed to an amount less than the standard maximum speed” (Paragraph [0069]). Then, Nangeroni discloses “The vehicle operation response can be overridden in response to satisfaction of a vehicle operation condition, manually (e.g., user instruction…)…at any other suitable time.” (Paragraph [0147]). Thus, manual action from a user instruction (switching operation unit) may override the limited maximum speed. Therefore, the action of overriding the speed limit with a user instruction forcibly switches the travel state (removes a limit))
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangeroni in view of Borgesson (US 2009/0228175 A1; hereinafter Borgesson).
Regarding claim 2: Nangeroni discloses parent claim 1. Nangeroni discloses in a case where the travel state is switched on the basis of the switching operation performed by the switching operation unit as recited above and notifications in response to changing vehicle conditions (Paragraph [0068, 0134, 0157]) but does not explicitly disclose presentation of a notification in response to changing travel state.
However, Borgesson, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control modes, teaches wherein, in a case where the travel state is switched on the basis of the switching operation performed by the switching operation unit, the controller notifies the occupant and/or surroundings of the mobile object of information indicating that the travel state has been forcibly switched. (Paragraph [0072-0075] and Figure [3a-3d], Borgesson teaches that the display presents information pertaining to the selected drive mode (for instance, the description of the mode, such as “Off-Road” and the changes in speed distribution corresponding to limits imposed by the mode). Thus, the presentation of a certain speedometer scale or text notifies an operator of the vehicle information (mode) indicating that the state has been switched)
Nangeroni and Borgesson are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control modes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nangeroni to include an explicit disclosure that mode changes/overrides/etc. are displayed to an operator as taught by Borgesson. Merely altering Nangeroni to include a notification that the mode has been changed is an obvious modification that is well within the capability of one having ordinary skill in the art (at the time of effective filing) to implement as desired. Notifications are well understood to serve the purpose of alerting an operator to a changing condition. Borgesson is utilized as a disclosure that establishes that it was known in the art to provide user interface notifications to changing drive modes. Merely displaying the drive mode disclosed by Nangeroni is an obvious matter of design choice, where one would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide important information to an operator.
Regarding claim 3: Nangeroni discloses parent claim 1. Nangeroni discloses in a case where the travel state is switched on the basis of the switching operation performed by the switching operation unit as recited above and notifications in response to changing vehicle conditions (Paragraph [0068, 0134, 0157]) but does not explicitly disclose presentation of a notification in response to changing travel state.
However, Borgesson, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control modes, teaches wherein, in a case where the travel state is switched on the basis of the switching operation performed by the switching operation unit, the controller notifies the occupant and/or surroundings of the mobile object of information indicating which of the first travel state and the second travel state the mobile object is moving in. (Paragraph [0072-0075] and Figure [3a-3d], Borgesson teaches that the display presents information pertaining to the selected drive mode (for instance, the description of the mode, such as “Off-Road” and the changes in speed distribution corresponding to limits imposed by the mode))
Nangeroni and Borgesson are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control modes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nangeroni to include an explicit disclosure that mode changes/overrides/etc. are displayed to an operator as taught by Borgesson. Merely altering Nangeroni to include a notification that the mode has been changed is an obvious modification that is well within the capability of one having ordinary skill in the art (at the time of effective filing) to implement as desired. Notifications are well understood to serve the purpose of alerting an operator to a changing condition. Borgesson is utilized as a disclosure that establishes that it was known in the art to provide user interface notifications to changing drive modes. Merely displaying the drive mode disclosed by Nangeroni is an obvious matter of design choice, where one would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide important information to an operator.
Regarding claim 4: Nangeroni discloses parent claim 1. Nangeroni further discloses wherein the controller makes a notification mode in a case of notification of the travel state [switched by the switching operation of the switching operation unit] different from that in a case of notification of the travel state determined on the basis of the road type recognized by the road type recognizer. (Paragraph [0068, 0134, 0157], Nangeroni discloses presenting a notification to a user of a vehicle operation condition (changing speed limit). Further, notifications may be among a plurality of types, including visual, audible, tactile, etc.)
Nangeroni does not explicitly disclose display/notification when travel state is switched.
However, Borgesson, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control modes, teaches notification mode in a case of notification of the travel state switched by the switching operation of the switching operation unit (Paragraph [0072-0075] and Figure [3a-3d], Borgesson teaches that the display presents information pertaining to the selected drive mode (for instance, the description of the mode, such as “Off-Road” and the changes in speed distribution corresponding to limits imposed by the mode))
Nangeroni and Borgesson are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control modes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nangeroni to include an explicit disclosure that mode changes/overrides/etc. are displayed to an operator as taught by Borgesson. Merely altering Nangeroni to include a notification that the mode has been changed is an obvious modification that is well within the capability of one having ordinary skill in the art (at the time of effective filing) to implement as desired. Notifications are well understood to serve the purpose of alerting an operator to a changing condition. Borgesson is utilized as a disclosure that establishes that it was known in the art to provide user interface notifications to changing drive modes. Merely displaying the drive mode disclosed by Nangeroni is an obvious matter of design choice, where one would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide important information to an operator.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangeroni in view of Filev et al. (US 2012/0203424 A1; hereinafter Filev).
Regarding claim 5: Nangeroni discloses parent claim 1. Nangeroni discloses switch the travel state based on the switching operation performed by the switching operation unit as discussed in the parent claim. Nangeroni further discloses wherein the controller moves the mobile object in any of a plurality of driving modes which are set in advance, and (Paragraph [0064, 0066, 0069], Nangeroni discloses vehicle operation parameters and conditions which can limit the maximum speed of the vehicle, such as when the vehicle operates on a sidewalk. The limited speed constitutes one “mode” set in advance and the normal maximum speed is another “mode”)
Nangeroni does not explicitly disclose prevention of manual switching between modes.
However, Filev, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle drive mode control, teaches moves the mobile object in any of a plurality of driving modes which are set in advance, and (Paragraph [0013, 0027], Filev teaches a plurality of drive modes)
does not switch the travel state based on the switching operation performed by the switching operation unit in a case where the driving mode being executed is a specific driving mode. (Paragraph [0027], Filev teaches that “In case the driver manually selects a drive mode, which is not deemed as safe based on the estimation from the safety condition assessment 132, the safety module 110 will override the manually selected mode and replace it with a safe mode or prevent the modification of current drive mode”)
Nangeroni and Filev are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle drive mode control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nangeroni to prevent the manual switching of drive modes in certain scenarios as taught by Filev, in the interest of preventing unsafe operation (Filev, Paragraph [0027]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangeroni in view of Falconer et al. (US 2019/0047527 A1; hereinafter Falconer).
Regarding claim 6: Nangeroni discloses parent claim 1. Nangeroni discloses switch the travel state based on the switching operation performed by the switching operation unit, as noted in the parent claim.
Nangeroni does not explicitly utilize a confidence value associated with a road surface detection in order to determine performance of an action (switching the travel state, as noted above).
However, Falconer, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control based upon road surface conditions, teaches wherein the controller does not [switch the travel state based on the switching operation performed by the switching operation unit] in a case where a degree of recognition of the road type recognized by the road type recognizer is equal to or greater than a threshold. (Paragraph [0036], Falconer teaches determination of a confidence value associated with detection of type of road surface, using the confidence value as a determination of whether to continue with a method of control or utilize a backup action)
Nangeroni and Falconer are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control based upon road surface conditions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nangeroni to utilize a confidence in data as a decision point (as taught by Falconer) to be used in the determination of whether to switch travel states, as the use of a confidence threshold allows one to prevent false alerts that would incorrectly affect vehicle control. Performing assessment of confidence in collected data indicating road type is known in the art (Falconer, Paragraph [0036]) and would have been an obvious modification to Nangeroni in the pursuit of preventing mode changes based upon false recognition.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nangeroni in view of Sheckler et al. (US 2022/0044551 A1; published 10 Feb 2022, hereinafter Sheckler).
Regarding claim 7: Nangeroni discloses parent claim 1. Nangeroni discloses a case where the switching operation of the travel state is performed by the switching operation unit, as discussed in the parent claim.
Nangeroni does not explicitly disclose alerting a remote server in the case that position of the vehicle is sent when the switch is actuated.
However, Sheckler, in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control, teaches wherein the controller notifies an external device of information on a position of the mobile object [in a case where the switching operation of the travel state is performed by the switching operation unit]. (Paragraph [0017] and Claim [5, 18], Sheckler teaches a safety device to be applied to a vehicle that notifies a remote server of the location of the host vehicle when the switch is activated)
Nangeroni and Sheckler are in a similar field of endeavor of vehicle control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Nangeroni to include a feature where the location of the vehicle is sent to the remote server when the switch is activated (as taught by Sheckler) in the interest of providing additional safety measures to an operator or response to adverse situations (Paragraph [0017] of Sheckler). Nangeroni discloses that the location of the vehicle is sent to the remote computing system (Paragraph [0120]) but not upon switch actuation. However, sending position upon actuation of a switch is an obvious modification of Nangeroni and was known in the art at the time of effective filing, as evidenced by the teaching of Sheckler.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2020/0124430 A1
DETECTING TYPES OF TRAVEL
CORRIDORS ON WHICH PERSONAL
MOBILITY VEHICLES TRAVEL
Bradlow et al.
Filed: 21 Oct 2019
Pub: 23 Apr 2020
Discusses limiting the maximum operating speed of a vehicle when it is detected that the vehicle is operated in an area such as a sidewalk in order to prevent accidents.
2
US 2015/0025769 A1
VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL SYSTEMAND
METHOD
Franganillo et al.
Filed: 15 Mar 2014
Pub: 22 Jan 2015
Discusses a system wherein the device may determine a type of terrain/surface with which the vehicle operates and limit the speed accordingly. Further, an override is provided.
3
US 2018/0022349 A1
METHOD OF SPEED CONTROL FOR A VEHICLE
Fairgrieve et al.
Filed: 29 Sep 2017
Pub: 25 Jan 2018
Discusses a device that establishes a maximum speed for a vehicle, the speed varied according to a detected terrain type.
4
US 2019/0220008 A1
VEHICLE TRAVEL CONTROL APPARATUS
Mizuno et al.
Filed: 10 Jan 2019
Pub: 18 Jul 2019
Discusses a device that provides for a plurality of driving modes, the driving modes dependent upon detection of road surface conditions (types of road surfaces), the modes limiting vehicle speed. Further, a user may manually switch drive modes.
5
US 2021/0034156 A1
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SIDEWALK
DETECTION FOR PERSONAL MOBILITY
VEHICLES
Drayna
Filed: 30 Sep 2019
Pub: 04 Feb 2021
Discusses a mobile device that may be operated on the road or on a sidewalk (a region different from the road), wherein the device may recognize when the vehicle is operated on the sidewalk and limit a maximum operating speed.
6
DE102018206044A1
Method for Operating a Motor Vehicle
Roth
Filed: 20 Apr 2018
Pub: 14 Jan 2021
Discusses a device that determines that type of road that a vehicle is operating on and selects a suitable mode. Further, the mode limits the speed of the vehicle. Further, a selected mode is displayed/announced. Finally, an operator may manually select a mode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658