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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed 09/18/2024 (claimed foreign priority date 03/24/2022):
Claims 1-13 have been examined.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Claim Interpretation
1. 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.
1.1 This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “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) but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “device location confirmation unit;” “failure reason identification unit;” “response processing unit,” in claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12.
Per fig. 7, Para [0090, 0099] of the specification, at least as published, the claimed “units” appear to be structure elements/components of a bigger structure(s).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
1.1 Claims 1-12 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1 and 2 recite the same limitation/feature: “a reception status of a signal from the communication partner,” which is unclear whether the same reception status of the same signal from the communication partner is being claimed in claims 1 and 2, where claim 2 depends on claim 1, OR different reception status(es) of a different signal(s) from the communication partner is being claimed in claims 1 and 2, where claim 2 depends on claim 1, which renders the claims indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification, and under BRI, it will be interpreted that the same reception status of the same signal from the communication partner is being claimed in claims 1 and 2, where claim 2 depends on claim 1.
1.1.2 Claims 2-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their direct and/or indirect dependencies on rejected independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1.1 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.
1.1.1 Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle control apparatus (i.e., machine, manufacture). Claim 13 is directed to a vehicle control method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are within the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites:
13. A vehicle control method that is performed by at least one processor to determine a location of a key device through wireless communication with the key device, the key device being a portable device registered in advance as a key of a vehicle, the vehicle control method comprising:
determining whether a communication partner is present in a vehicle based on a reception status of a wireless signal from the communication partner;
determining whether the communication partner is the key device based on data transmitted from the communication partner;
identifying, based on a content of the data received from the communication partner, an authentication failure reason that is a reason why the communication partner has failed to be determined as the key device when the communication partner has failed to be determined to be the key device; and
considering the key device to be present in the vehicle even if the communication partner has failed to be determined to be the key device when the authentication failure reason is a specific reason and the communication partner has been determined to be present in the vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining;” “registering;” “considering” in the context of this claim encompass a person (driver/operator/user/human, etc.) looking at data received/transmitted (signals from various apparatuses/units/sources/antennas, etc.) and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
13. A vehicle control method that is performed by at least one processor to determine a location of a key device through wireless communication with the key device, the key device being a portable device registered in advance as a key of a vehicle, the vehicle control method comprising:
determining whether a communication partner is present in a vehicle based on a reception status of a wireless signal from the communication partner;
determining whether the communication partner is the key device based on data transmitted from the communication partner;
identifying, based on a content of the data received from the communication partner, an authentication failure reason that is a reason why the communication partner has failed to be determined as the key device when the communication partner has failed to be determined to be the key device; and
considering the key device to be present in the vehicle even if the communication partner has failed to be determined to be the key device when the authentication failure reason is a specific reason and the communication partner has been determined to be present in the vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “data transmitted;” data received;” “reception status of a wireless signal,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (at least one processor/ECU/vehicle control apparatus/smart ECU including functional units) to perform the process. In particular, the claimed data transmission, data receiving, receiving status of a wireless signal steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of data collection/gathering prior to determining, identifying, considering step(s) and presenting/transmitting data after registering, determining, identifying, considering step(s)), and amount to mere pre solution receiving/collection/gathering and post solution transmitting/informing/presenting, which is forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. Lastly, the “at least one processor/ECU/vehicle control apparatus/smart ECU including functional units” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining, registering, considering steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “at least one processor/ECU/vehicle control apparatus/smart ECU including functional units” to perform the determining, registering, considering amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “data transmitting;” data receiving;” “reception status of a wireless signal,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “data transmitting;” data receiving;” “reception status of a wireless signal” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the “at least one processor/ECU/vehicle control apparatus/smart ECU including functional units” is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-12 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It is unclear what the claimed limitations/features, in dependent claims 2-4 and 6-12, are directed to in order to, or what or how they contribute/improve/influence/affect/innovate vehicle control, or operation, or use, or handling, or navigation, etc. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 and 6-12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-13 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
1.1.2 Dependent claim 5, however, appear to recite further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The Examiner finds that the limitations of dependent claim 5 that are directed toward to “the response processing unit that performs a process for switching a locking mechanism for the trunk to an unlocked state” appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claim 5 appears to be patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
2. Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
3. Claims 2-4 and 6-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4. Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
SUGITA (US20220340102) – (see entire SUGITA document, particularly abstract – teaching a vehicle control device that includes: an acquisition section configured to acquire a determination result as to whether a predetermined communication terminal is in a vehicle cabin interior area, and acquire another determination result as to whether or not the communication terminal is in a vehicle cabin exterior area; and a control section configured to, based on the determination results of the acquisition section, initiate a closing operation of a vehicle door in cases in which a determination is made that the communication terminal is in the vehicle cabin exterior area, and stop the closing operation in cases in which a determination is made that the communication terminal is in the vehicle cabin interior area after the closing operation was initiated).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571- 270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662