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 .
Specification Objections
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.
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: “analysis unit” in claims 1, 5, and 6; “determination unit” in claims 1 and 4.
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 § 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.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6, claim limitation “analysis unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is disclosed that the application instruction output control device 12 includes an operating state analysis unit 20 [0036], however the specification is devoid of any description of structure of what the analysis unit is physically made of. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, claim limitation “determination unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is disclosed that the application instruction output control device 12 includes a safety determination unit 24 [0036], however the specification is devoid of any description of structure of what the determination unit is physically made of. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 7, this claim recites “a mobile body”. It is unclear if “a mobile body” in claim 7 refers to “a mobile body” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a mobile body”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a mobile body” in claim 7 to mean “the mobile body”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goudy (US 20050038573 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Goudy discloses a mobile body control device comprising (Paragraphs 0016, 0036-0038, Fig. 1; Mobile body control device is mapped to apparatus 10);
an analysis unit configured to analyze a current operating state of a mobile body (Paragraphs 0018-0027, Fig. 1; “information sources may include GPS, vehicle electronic systems, such as ABS, engine controller, throttle position sensor, steering position sensor, vehicle speed sensor, longitudinal acceleration, steering angle, yaw rate or the like”);
and a determination unit configured to (Paragraphs 0018-0027, Fig. 1; Determination unit is mapped to system 12);
determine whether a control instruction from an application is safe in the current operating state (Paragraphs 0032-0034; “when a driver is on a call in progress and the state of the driving environment changes to a high-risk state, the system 12 will prompt the driver to complete the call as soon as possible but will not disable the cell phone until the call is completed”);
with reference to a risk level calculated based on a control target and the current operating state (Paragraphs 0018-0027, Fig. 1; Control target is mapped to infotainment device 20);
allow the control instruction to be output to the control target based on the control instruction being determined to be safe in the current operating state (Paragraphs 0018-0027, Fig. 1; “when the information task manager 14 transmits risk level information to the information interface 16 that is less than the priority level information of the at least one infotainment device 20, the infotainment device will be re-enabled to normal operation”);
and prevent the control instruction from being output to the control target based on the control instruction being determined to be unsafe in the current operating state (Paragraphs 0018-0027, Fig. 1; “When the information interface 16 receives risk level information from the information task manager 14 that is higher than the priority level information relative to the at least one infotainment device 20, the at least one infotainment device 20 will be disabled by the system 12”).
Regarding claim 2, Goudy discloses the application has been manufactured by a third party (Paragraphs 0004, 0032-0034; “Illustratively, for some devices such as cell phones, the user interface allows the user to define at least one incoming call phone number as critical and not to be disabled by the system 12”).
Regarding claim 3, Goudy discloses the control target is one of control targets (Paragraphs 0018-0027, Fig. 1);
and the risk level is calculated based on set values that have been set for the control targets in accordance with operating states of the mobile body (Paragraph 0035, Figs. 1-2; “The information task manager 14 calculates risk level information by first combining data relative to information received from the least one information source 30 with a weighted value or grade”).
Regarding claim 4, Goudy discloses the operating states include a control state of the mobile body and an operating environment of the mobile body (Paragraph 0027, Fig. 1 (Element 30); “the sensing devices may include forward, rear, side or blind spot looking optic sensors, road condition sensors, proximity detection sensors, external temperature sensors and rain detection sensors. Other information sources may include GPS, vehicle electronic systems, such as ABS, engine controller, throttle position sensor, steering position sensor, vehicle speed sensor, longitudinal acceleration, steering angle, yaw rate or the like”);
the set values have been set for the operating states (Paragraph 0035, Figs. 2);
the determination unit is configured to determine that the mobile body is unsafe based on a sum of set values corresponding to the control targets and the current operating state of the mobile body being equal to or greater than a predetermined value (Paragraph 0035; “calculates risk level information by first combining data relative to information received from the least one information source 30 with a weighted value or grade. Thereafter, all of the weighted data is combined to define the risk level information associated with the condition of the driving environment at the particular instant in time”).
Regarding claim 6, Goudy discloses the analysis unit is configured to analyze the current operating state depending on whether same control is continuously performed (Paragraphs 0034, 0039; “at least one timing device wherein the at least one infotainment device 20 that has disabled will only be re-enabled after the expiration of a predetermined time period”).
Regarding claim 7, Goudy discloses a mobile body comprising the mobile body control device according to claim 1 (Paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 8, Goudy discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a control program comprising instructions configured to, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer included in (Paragraphs 0008-0010, 0022, Claim 1);
a mobile body to carry out (Paragraphs 0016).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claim 9, Goudy discloses at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions configured to, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out (Paragraphs 0008-0010, 0022, Claim 1).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
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 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goudy in view of Samper (US 20180143628 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Goudy discloses the mobile body control device.
Goudy does not specifically state the analysis unit is configured to analyze the current operating state based on operating states classified in advance.
However, Samper teaches the analysis unit is configured to analyze the current operating state based on operating states classified in advance (Paragraphs 0027-0028; “if the system detects that the user is engaged with the infotainment system when the user should be performing an action to transition the vehicle from a stop state to a moving state, the system may prevent access to the infotainment system of the first vehicle 110 such that the user may no longer interact with the infotainment system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Goudy with analyzing the current operating state based on operating states classified in advance of Samper with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a vehicle can determine whether a driver is distracted by the infotainment system based on whether the vehicle should be in a moving state or a stopped state. When the traffic light is green and the vehicle should be moving through the intersection, but the vehicle still remains stopped, this causes inconvenience and safety issues. The infotainment system of the vehicle can be disabled when these situations arise so the driver can focus on driving. One would have been motivated to combine Goudy with Samper as this achieves determination and prevention of driver distraction. As stated in Samper, “One such action could include preventing the driver from engaging in the activity that potentially impairs his/her ability to perform the desired task, which in this case is progressing through the intersection. For example, if the system detects that the user is engaged with the infotainment system when the user should be performing an action to transition the vehicle from a stop state to a moving state, the system may prevent access to the infotainment system” (Paragraphs 0027-0028).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669