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 09/19/2024 (claimed foreign priority date 10/24/2023):
Claims 1-4 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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 1-4 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 Claim 1 recite the following limitation/feature: “… when the manual operation performed during the automatic driving control satisfies an override condition, control the behavior of the vehicle based on the manual operation and determine whether or not the manual operation is caused by the external environment,” which is unclear to understand HOW OR WHY the claimed/specified “controller is controlling the behavior of the vehicle based on the manual operation when the manual operation performed,” OR WHETHER the controller is controlling the behaviour of the vehicle based on the manual operation behavior that have already been learned, OR based on a behavior of a different manual operation that is performed during the automatic driving control, OR WHETHER the controller is controlling the behavior of the vehicle based on the manual operation for the behaviour to be learned again, OR WHAT, OR HOW, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
The Examiner finds that specification merely repeats claim language in numerous paragraphs without any evidence for or detail explanation about HOW OR WHY the claimed/specified “controller is controlling the behavior of the vehicle based on the manual operation when the manual operation performed,” OR WHETHER the controller is controlling the behaviour of the vehicle based on the manual operation behavior that have already been learned, OR based on a behavior of a different manual operation that is performed during the automatic driving control, OR WHETHER the controller is controlling the behavior of the vehicle based on the manual operation for the behaviour to be learned again, OR WHAT, OR HOW, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification and/or appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of this examination, in view of the specification the limitation/feature “… when the manual operation performed during the automatic driving control satisfies an override condition, control the behavior of the vehicle based on the manual operation and determine whether or not the manual operation is caused by the external environment” is not given patentable weight, and hence will be interpreted as the following: “the controller is configured to: … when the manual operation performed during the automatic driving control satisfies an override condition,
1.1.2 Claims 2-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 1, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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, set forth in this Office action.
2. Claims 2-4 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:
Kellogg (US6445984) – (see entire Kellogg document, particularly abstract – teaching a method and apparatus for controlling a steer center position of an automatic guided vehicle (AGV) of the type that follows a wire; as the automatic vehicle follows a wire, the distance of the AGV from the wire monitored over a given distance, and an average distance from wire calculated; using this value to determine a steer center position adjustment, which adjusts the steer center position to maintain the AGV within a predetermined distance of the wire or other path; accounting for variations between AGV's based on mechanical linkages and manufacturing differences; differences in steer center position when an AGV is driven in a forward or reverse direction; and changes due to environmental conditions);
IMAMURA (US20220041157) – (see entire IMAMURA document, particularly abstract – teaching a drive force control system for a vehicle configured to accurately imitate a change in a drive force in a model vehicle; a drive torque simulator that computes a virtual drive torque supposed to be delivered to drive wheels of the model vehicle in response to a manual operation to manipulate the vehicle, based on torque changing factors of a powertrain of the model vehicle; an actual torque calculator that computes a target torque of a motor that is practically delivered to the drive wheels in the vehicle based on the virtual drive torque computed by the drive torque simulator, taking account of torque changing factors of the powertrain of the vehicle).
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