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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-7 are currently pending and addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“drive device” provided in claim 1
“control device” provided in claim 1
“detection device” provided in claim 1
The specification and drawings were used to define the generic placeholder specified above (item a):
Specification – “…The drive device 40 may include an internal combustion engine, a
fuel cell, or the like … The control device 100 includes, for example, a recognition unit 120, a target- trajectory generation unit 130, a drive control unit 140, and an HMI control unit 150.
These components are realized by, for example, a hardware processor such as a central
processing unit (CPU) executing the program (software) 74… The external environment detection device 10 is an example of a detection device. The external environment detection device 10 includes, for example, an external camera… may include a radar device, a light detection and ranging (LIDAR), a sensor fusion device, or the like…”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato JP 2017197015 A (“Sato”) in view of Inuzuka US 20180237013 A1 (“Inuzuka”).
For claim 1, Sato discloses a mobile body allowing an occupant to board (See at least page 2 – “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram showing an entire in-vehicle information processing system 10 according to the present embodiment” and Fig. 1 of Sato – vehicle includes seats for operator and passenger), comprising:
a control device (See at least page 19 of Sato – “… the control unit 15…”);
a detection device configured to acquire at least a situation on a side in a traveling direction of the mobile body (See at least page 22 of Sato – “… the control unit 15 determines that the traveling state of the subject vehicle to be controlled … determines whether the traveling state of the subject vehicle to be controlled is a planned passing route at an intersection…”); and
a first operating element provided on an armrest of the mobile body (See at least page 4 of Sato – “… As shown in FIG. 1, the touch operation part 12 is arrange | positioned at a center console, for example…”), wherein
in response to an operation made on the first operating element indicating either the left or right, the control device is configured to automatically generate a target trajectory of the mobile body to change the traveling direction based on a situation on a side in the traveling direction and so as to cause the mobile body to move along the target trajectory (See at least page 19 – “… FIG. 12 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of the control of the scheduled passage route for the intersection by the operator… the display layer 1112 may display the planned passage route for the intersection as “turn right” or the like in characters, or may be expressed by an arrow… the operator touches one finger at a position on the touch pad 121 corresponding to the position of the host vehicle on the display layer 1112, and swipes along a planned passing route at an intersection. At this time, the control unit 15 causes the display layer 1112 to display the above-described arrow in accordance with the operator's swipe operation. Thereafter, the control unit 15 controls the host vehicle so as to pass through the intersection according to the planned passing route…” and Fig. 12 of Sato – right turn route is generated as the operator swipes to the right along the planned passing route).
Sato fails to specifically disclose a mobile body comprising:
a drive device configured to move the mobile body; and
a control device configured to control the drive device.
However, Inuzuka, in the same field of endeavor teaches a mobile body comprising:
a drive device configured to move the mobile body (See at least [0024] of Inuzuka – “… The accelerator driver 62, the brake driver 64, and the steering driver 66 are components controlled by the controller 50 in the automatic driving mode. The accelerator driver 62 increases or decreases the output of a prime mover such as an engine and a motor in accordance with the control by the controller 50…”); and
a control device configured to control the drive device (See at least [0024] of Inuzuka – “… The accelerator driver 62, the brake driver 64, and the steering driver 66 are components controlled by the controller 50 in the automatic driving mode. The accelerator driver 62 increases or decreases the output of a prime mover such as an engine and a motor in accordance with the control by the controller 50… The brake driver 64 drives the actuator based on the control by the controller 50 … The steering driver 66 drives the steering mechanism to the right or left by driving the actuator under the control of the controller 50…”). Thus, Sato discloses an on-board vehicle control system that features a touchpad on an arm rest center console of the vehicle that allows an operator to change the traveling direction for the vehicle at a determined intersection, while Inuzuka teaches a driving assistance system for a vehicle that uses a controller to control the vehicle engine and other actuators for changing driving controls for the vehicle while the vehicle is traveling.
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 mobile body as disclosed in Sato to include the feature of a drive device configured to move the mobile body as taught by Inuzuka, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to change driving control while the vehicle is traveling as specified in at least [0023] of Inuzuka.
For claim 2, Sato discloses wherein
as a target trajectory of changing a traveling direction of the mobile body, the control device is configured to generate a target trajectory of causing the mobile body to turn right or left or change a lane (See at least page 19 – “… FIG. 12 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of the control of the scheduled passage route for the intersection by the operator… the display layer 1112 may display the planned passage route for the intersection as “turn right” or the like in characters, or may be expressed by an arrow… the operator touches one finger at a position on the touch pad 121 corresponding to the position of the host vehicle on the display layer 1112, and swipes along a planned passing route at an intersection. At this time, the control unit 15 causes the display layer 1112 to display the above-described arrow in accordance with the operator's swipe operation. Thereafter, the control unit 15 controls the host vehicle so as to pass through the intersection according to the planned passing route…” and Fig. 12 of Sato – right turn route is generated as the operator swipes to the right along the planned passing route).
For claim 3, Sato fails to specifically disclose wherein the first operating element is provided on an armrest placed on an inner side of a door provided on a side surface of the mobile body.
However, Inuzuka, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the first operating element is provided on an armrest placed on an inner side of a door provided on a side surface of the mobile body (See at least [0026]-[0028] – “… FIG. 3 is a plan view showing an example of the sensor 16. As shown in the figure, the sensor 16 is integrated with the user control input interface 56 … the arm rest 12b can be provided in the seat 20 or inside the door…” and Fig. 3 of Inuzuka – control input interface is on the arm rest for vehicle control). Thus, Sato discloses an on-board vehicle control system that features a touchpad on an arm rest center console of the vehicle that allows an operator to change the traveling direction for the vehicle at a determined intersection, while Inuzuka teaches a driving assistance system for a vehicle that uses a controller located on an arm rest inside a door of the vehicle for changing the traveling track condition for the vehicle.
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 mobile body as disclosed in Sato to include the feature of the first operating element being provided on an armrest placed on an inner side of a door provided on a side surface of the mobile body as taught by Inuzuka, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the sensor at a position that can be reached by the hand of the driver when the driver rests the arm on the standby member as specified in at least [0029] of Inuzuka.
For claim 6, Sato discloses comprising
two seats aligned in a direction intersecting a traveling direction of the mobile body (See at least Fig. 1 of Sato – two seats aligned in the vehicle cabin intersecting a traveling direction of the vehicle), wherein
the armrest is provided between the two seats (See at least Fig. 1 of Sato – arm rest center console is provided between the two seats).
For claim 7, Sato discloses further comprising
a second operating element configured to manually operate a traveling direction of the mobile body (See at least Fig. 1 of Sato – steering wheel of vehicle to manually operate direction of the vehicle), wherein
the first operating element is provided behind the second operating element in a traveling direction of the mobile body (See at least Fig. 1 of Sato – touch operation part 12 is positioned at a center console behind the steering wheel of vehicle relative to a traveling direction of the vehicle).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Inuzuka, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wheeler et al. US 20170058588 A1 (“Wheeler”).
For claim 5, Sato fails to specifically disclose wherein
the first operating element is provided at a position that does not overlap an opening/closing operating element configured to open and close the door in a side view.
However, Wheeler, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein
the first operating element is provided at a position that does not overlap an opening/closing operating element configured to open and close the door in a side view (See at least [0047]-[0048] of Wheeler – “… In some implementations, the driver seat door has a touch control 1000 on the outside. The touch control can be formed like a presenting door handle of the type that sits flush with the door skin when retracted. For example, the touch control does not extend out of the door at all but rather presents a touch sensitive surface (e.g., using capacitive sensing) that detects when a person placed their hand or arm against the control. This can then trigger an automated opening of the door, such as to a convenience position… The touch control 1000 can also be used for automatically closing the door when it is open. For example, if the driver touches the touch control while the door is in the convenience position, this will trigger the automated closing of the front door…”and Fig. 10 of Wheeler – touch control 1000 located outside of the car door. Examiner notes that the operating element to open and close the car door is located outside of the vehicle, which does not overlap with the first operating element located inside the vehicle at the arm rest center console as described in Sato). Thus, Sato discloses an on-board vehicle control system that features a touchpad on an arm rest center console of the vehicle that allows an operator to change the traveling direction for the vehicle at a determined intersection, while Wheeler teaches a touch sensitive control surface provided outside of a car door for opening and closing the car door.
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 mobile body as disclosed in Sato to include the feature of the first operating element being provided at a position that does not overlap an opening/closing operating element configured to open and close the door in a side view as taught by Wheeler, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to open and close a car door from outside of the vehicle as specified in at least [0047]-[0048] of Wheeler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is Sato JP 2017197015 A (“Sato”), Inuzuka US 20180237013 A1 (“Inuzuka”), and Wheeler et al. US 20170058588 A1 (“Wheeler”).
Sato discloses an on-board vehicle control system that features a touchpad on an arm rest center console of the vehicle that allows an operator to change the traveling direction for the vehicle at a determined intersection.
Inuzuka teaches a driving assistance system for a vehicle that uses a controller located on an arm rest inside a door of the vehicle for changing the traveling track condition for the vehicle, however, the reference is silent with regards to of two doors provided on left and right side surfaces of the mobile body, the first operating element being provided on the armrest placed on an inner side of a door on a side opposite to a side along which the mobile body is legally determined to travel.
Wheeler teaches a touch sensitive control surface provided outside of a car door for opening and closing the car door.
As to claim 4, the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the following claimed subject matter:
“wherein
of two doors provided on left and right side surfaces of the mobile body, the first operating element is provided on the armrest placed on an inner side of a door on a side opposite to a side along which the mobile body is legally determined to travel”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights