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
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 12/02/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2024 and 12/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
At the location shown below in Fig. 2 “DRIVER’ S” should read --DRIVER’S--.
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
617
1135
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the S160 box in Fig. 9 “DRIVER’ S” should read --DRIVER’S--.
In the S154 box in Fig. 10 “CONTROL IS” should read --CONTROL--.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1 lines 10-11 “first driving control” should read --a first driving control--.
At claim 1 line 13 “second driving control” should read --a second driving control--.
At claim 6 lines 2-3 “a driver” should read --the driver--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I. states in computer-implemented functional claims the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. The algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made.
Claim 11 recites the limitations A) “the second notification is issued when a particular driving support function is operated within a predetermined time from the first notification” in claim 1 lines 15-16, and B) “the controller does not execute driving control based on the particular driving support function when the second notification is issued by the notifier within a predetermined time from the first notification” in lines 2-4. Applicant has not disclosed an algorithm in which B) the particular driving support function is not executed when the second notification is issued where A) the second notification is issued when the particular driving support function is operated. Therefore claim 11 does not meet the written description requirement. See rejection of the claim under 112(b) below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the notifier includes a first notification…and a second notification” in lines 9-12. Applicant has claimed a vehicle control device. As such, the limitation “a notifier” is considered as a structural element in the claim whether embodied by hardware or software stored on non-transitory memory. The structure of the notifier therefore cannot include the first and second notifications which are actions of the structure rather than the structure of the notifier per se. For examination purposes the limitation “the notifier” in line 9 has been considered as --the notification--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the attention calling” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- calling attention of the driver of the host vehicle to the obstacle--.
Claim 11 recites the limitations A) “the second notification is issued when a particular driving support function is operated within a predetermined time from the first notification” in claim 1 lines 15-16, and B) “the controller does not execute driving control based on the particular driving support function when the second notification is issued by the notifier within a predetermined time from the first notification” in lines 2-4. It is unclear how in B) the particular driving support function is not executed when the second notification is issued if in A) the second notification is issued when the particular driving support function is operated, thus rendering limitation B) indefinite. For examination purposes claim 11 has been considered as best understood by the Examiner.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Analysis - 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.
Claims 1-15 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong two because the limitations in the independent claims of the first and second notifications and first and second driving control integrates the recited mental processes into a practical application of improving driving safety. As such the claims 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 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.
Claims 14-15 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter or reasons for allowance:
BOGNER (EP 2 620 314) and KOZLOWSKI (US 10,953,895) are the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, BOGNER discloses a vehicle control device comprising:
a recognizer that recognizes a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (implied/inherent, 0033 lines 1-3, 0062 lines 1-3, 0067 lines 8-9);
a driving state detector that detects a driving state of a driver of the host vehicle (0043 lines 8-14, 0062 lines 4-5);
a controller that executes, when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (yes at U8, 0064 lines 5-6) and the driver is in a distracted driving state (yes at U7, 0064 lines 1-2), driving control suitable for the obstacle on the basis of recognition results of the recognizer (U9, 0065 lines 1-5); and
a notifier that issues a notification to the driver when the driving control is executed by the controller (U9, 0064 lines 10-11),
wherein the notifier issues
a first notification (U9, 0064 lines 10-11) which is notified at the time of execution of first driving control including steering control (0065 lines 1-5).
KOZLOWSKI discloses a vehicle control device comprising:
a recognizer that recognizes a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (12, col. 5 lines 3-6);
a driving state detector that detects a driving state of a driver of the host vehicle (16, col. 5 lines 38-39);
a controller (20) that executes, when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (S32, col. 9 line 27) and the driver is in a distracted driving state (S36, col. 9 lines 35-36); and
a notifier that issues a notification to the driver (22, col. 9 lines 3-6),
wherein the notifier includes:
a first notification (S56, col. 10 lines 12-15), and
a second notification in a state in which the host vehicle has approached further toward the obstacle (S58, col. 10 lines 16-19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “a second notification which is notified at the time of execution of second driving control executed in a state in which the host vehicle has approached further toward the obstacle from in the first driving control, and the second notification is issued when a particular driving support function is operated within a predetermined time from the first notification” in the manner defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, BOGNER discloses a vehicle control method in which a computer
recognizes a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (implied/inherent, 0033 lines 1-3, 0062 lines 1-3, 0067 lines 8-9),
detects a driving state of a driver of the host vehicle (0043 lines 8-14, 0062 lines 4-5),
executes, when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (yes at U8, 0064 lines 5-6) and the driver is in a distracted driving state (yes at U7, 0064 lines 1-2), driving control suitable for the obstacle on the basis of recognition results of the surrounding situation (U9, 0065 lines 1-5), and
issues a notification to the driver when the driving control is executed (U9, 0064 lines 10-11),
wherein the notification includes a first notification (U9, 0064 lines 10-11) which is notified at the time of execution of first driving control including steering control (0065 lines 1-5).
KOZLOWSKI discloses a vehicle control method comprising:
recognizes a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (12, col. 5 lines 3-6),
detects a driving state of a driver of the host vehicle (16, col. 5 lines 38-39),
executes, when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (S32, col. 9 line 27) and the driver is in a distracted driving state (S36, col. 9 lines 35-36), and
issues a notification to the driver when the driving control is executed (22, col. 9 lines 3-6),
wherein the notification includes a first notification (S56, col. 10 lines 12-15) and a second notification which is notified in a state in which the host vehicle has approached further toward the obstacle (S58, col. 10 lines 16-19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “a second notification which is notified at the time of execution of second driving control executed in a state in which the host vehicle has approached further toward the obstacle from in the first driving control, and the second notification is issued when a particular driving support function is operated within a predetermined time from the first notification” in the manner defined in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, BOGNER discloses a computer readable non-transitory storage medium which stores a program causing a computer
to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (implied/inherent, 0033 lines 1-3, 0062 lines 1-3, 0067 lines 8-9),
to detect a driving state of a driver of the host vehicle (0043 lines 8-14, 0062 lines 4-5),
to execute, when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (yes at U8, 0064 lines 5-6) and the driver is in a distracted driving state (yes at U7, 0064 lines 1-2), driving control suitable for the obstacle on the basis of recognition results of the surrounding situation (U9, 0065 lines 1-5), and
to issue a notification to the driver when the driving control is executed (U9, 0064 lines 10-11),
wherein the notification includes a first notification (U9, 0064 lines 10-11) which is notified at the time of execution of first driving control including steering control (0065 lines 1-5), and a second notification which is notified at the time of execution of second driving control executed in a state in which the host vehicle has approached further toward the obstacle from in the first driving control, and
the second notification is issued when a particular driving support function is operated within a predetermined time from the first notification.
KOZLOWSKI discloses a computer readable non-transitory storage medium which stores a program causing a computer
to recognize a surrounding situation of a host vehicle (12, col. 5 lines 3-6),
to detect a driving state of a driver of the host vehicle (16, col. 5 lines 38-39),
to execute, when an obstacle is present in front of the host vehicle (S32, col. 9 line 27) and the driver is in a distracted driving state (S36, col. 9 lines 35-36), and
to issue a notification to the driver when the driving control is executed (22, col. 9 lines 3-6),
wherein the notification includes a first notification (S56, col. 10 lines 12-15), and a second notification which is notified in a state in which the host vehicle has approached further toward the obstacle (S58, col. 10 lines 16-19).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the claim limitation “second notification which is notified at the time of execution of second driving control executed in a state in which the host vehicle has approached further toward the obstacle from in the first driving control, and the second notification is issued when a particular driving support function is operated within a predetermined time from the first notification” in the manner defined in claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747