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 Office Action is in response to the application filed on 09/30/2024. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-197598, filed on 11/21/2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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. The following title is suggested: “VEHICLE ACCELERATION CONTROL DEVICE, VEHICLE ACCELERATION CONTROL METHOD”.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 IS objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “feedback control being based on a value obtained by accumulating a value obtained by…”. “a value” is used twice within this claim. This limitation causes confusion as one can interpret this limitation to state that the value is obtained by accumulating the same value. The examiner recommends to amend this claim to distinctly clarity these values. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 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 is:
“PI control” in claim 2. As per the specification “PI control” has been interpretated as an executable control via a “motion manager”. However, the structure of “motion manager” is not clearly defined in the specification and therefore is not sufficient structure to perform the recited function. ([0025]; “In the present embodiment, the motion manager 45 executes, as part of the arbitration control, so-called PI control”)
Because this claim limitations is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it 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 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 2 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 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. The specification does not recite what the structure for “PI control” as stated in the claim interpretation section “PI control” has been mention to be executed via a “motion manager”. However, sufficient structure is not provided within the specification for “motion manager” in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art what the structure is.
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.
Claims 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “control for calculating the corrected acceleration is PI control based on a difference between the second requested acceleration and the actual acceleration” This limitation causes confusion due to the sentence structure. If the intent of this limitation is to state that control of the calculation is done via a "PI control" and the calculation of the corrected acceleration is based on the difference between the second requested acceleration and the actual acceleration, the Examiner recommends segmenting this limitation for clarification. For purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the claims as stated above.
Claim limitation “PI control” 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. This disclosure does not recite what the structure is for “PI control”. 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.
Claim Rejections - 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus for claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case, the independent claims 1, 4, and 5 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
An information processing device, comprising processing circuitry that is configured to execute:
obtaining a first requested acceleration of a vehicle;
obtaining a second requested acceleration different from the first requested acceleration;
calculating a corrected acceleration by correcting the second requested acceleration (a person can obtain the data relating to the second requested acceleration and make corrections to the data mentally.);
selecting one of the first requested acceleration and the corrected acceleration as an arbitration result (a person can select one of the two acceleration results mentally to use as the arbitration acceleration.); and
outputting the arbitration result to a control circuit for controlling an actuator of the vehicle,
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, if the first requested acceleration has been selected as the arbitration result when the corrected acceleration is calculated, calculate the corrected acceleration such that the corrected acceleration is closer to the selected first requested acceleration than the corrected acceleration obtained when the selected first requested acceleration is obtained. (a person can recalculate the second requested acceleration mentally to correct the acceleration to be closer to the first requested acceleration.)
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 4 and 5, which are of similar scope to claim 1. Likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong I.
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”)
An information processing device, comprising processing circuitry that is configured to execute:
obtaining a first requested acceleration of a vehicle;
obtaining a second requested acceleration different from the first requested acceleration;
calculating a corrected acceleration by correcting the second requested acceleration (a person can obtain the data relating to the second requested acceleration and make corrections to the data mentally.);
selecting one of the first requested acceleration and the corrected acceleration as an arbitration result (a person can select one of the two acceleration results mentally to use as the arbitration acceleration.); and
outputting the arbitration result to a control circuit for controlling an actuator of the vehicle,
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, if the first requested acceleration has been selected as the arbitration result when the corrected acceleration is calculated, calculate the corrected acceleration such that the corrected acceleration is closer to the selected first requested acceleration than the corrected acceleration obtained when the selected first requested acceleration is obtained. (a person can recalculate the second requested acceleration mentally to correct the acceleration to be closer to the first requested acceleration.)
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining a first requested acceleration of a vehicle” and “obtaining a second requested acceleration different from the first requested acceleration” the examiner submits that these limitations are merely a pre-solution activity of gathering data.
Regarding the additional limitation of “outputting the arbitration result to a control circuit for controlling an actuator of the vehicle” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely a post-solution activity of transferring data.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitations do 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, the claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong II, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea and, therefore does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations “obtaining a first requested acceleration of a vehicle”, “obtaining a second requested acceleration different from the first requested acceleration”, and “outputting the arbitration result to a control circuit for controlling an actuator of the vehicle” as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of “obtaining a first requested acceleration of a vehicle”, “obtaining a second requested acceleration different from the first requested acceleration”, and “outputting the arbitration result to a control circuit for controlling an actuator of the vehicle” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)
“obtaining a first requested acceleration of a vehicle” and “obtaining a second requested acceleration different from the first requested acceleration” … is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); and
“outputting the arbitration result to a control circuit for controlling an actuator of the vehicle”… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Claim 2 merely narrows the mental process and the pre-solution activity of gathering data, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3 merely narrows the pre-solution activity of gathering data, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 4 recites details of claim 1 and recites computer hardware components yet does not integrate the judicial exception in a practical application, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 5 recites a method to operate the apparatus detailed in claim 1, therefore it is rejected for the same reason.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 4, and 5 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Hirotaka et al. (JP2009269517A; hereafter Hirotaka) as evidenced by McCormick et al. (US 20210300365 A1; hereafter McCormick).
Regarding claim 1, Hirotaka teaches an information processing device, comprising processing circuitry that is configured to execute:
obtaining a first requested acceleration of a vehicle ([0022]; “The ECU 22 controls the operation of the throttle valve 15 and the reaction force applying mechanism 24 based on the pedal operation amount θ, the vehicle speed V, and the cruise signal Sc.”);
obtaining a second requested acceleration different from the first requested acceleration ([0022]; “The ECU 22 controls the operation of the throttle valve 15 and the reaction force applying mechanism 24 based on the pedal operation amount θ, the vehicle speed V, and the cruise signal Sc.”);
selecting one of the first requested acceleration and the corrected acceleration as an arbitration result ([0026]; “The constant speed cruise mode is a driving mode in which the driver can select whether to start, continue, or end constant speed cruise in response to the operation of the accelerator pedal 12 by the driver.”); and
outputting the arbitration result to a control circuit for controlling an actuator of the vehicle ([0032]; “That is, once the constant speed cruise control is started, the ECU 22 controls the opening degree TH of the throttle valve 15 independently of the movement of the accelerator pedal 12 so that the vehicle speed V coincides with the cruise speed Vc.”),
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, if the first requested acceleration has been selected as the arbitration result when the corrected acceleration is calculated, calculate the corrected acceleration such that the corrected acceleration is closer to the selected first requested acceleration than the corrected acceleration obtained when the selected first requested acceleration is obtained. ([0038]; “In this embodiment, if the absolute value |Sap| of the pedal operation speed Sap is equal to or less than the pedal operation speed threshold value THsap (S9: No), the pedal operation amount θ is not zero (S10: No), and the pedal operation speed Sap is zero (S12: Yes), it is determined that the driver is requesting cruising at the cruising speed Vc corresponding to the current pedal operation amount θ.”
[0039]; “Therefore, if the pedal operation speed Sap is zero (S12: Yes), in step S13, the ECU 22 sets the current pedal operation amount θ as a new reference pedal operation amount θr.”
[0040]; “In the following step S14, the ECU 22 updates the cruise speed Vc based on the new reference pedal operation amount θr.”)
Although Hirotaka teaches obtaining a second acceleration, Hirotaka does not teach calculating a corrected acceleration by correcting the second requested acceleration.
However, McCormick within the same field of endeavor does teach calculating a corrected acceleration by correcting the second requested acceleration ([0054]; “In response to this feedback, the electronic processor 200 may adjust the default acceleration profile 605 of the vehicle 105 to the less aggressive acceleration profile 610.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hirotaka with McCormick. This modification would have been obvious because both Hirotaka and McCormick cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle acceleration control) and it would have been beneficial to adjust the second requested acceleration to prevent the vehicle from making aggressive accelerations while driving.
Regarding claim 3, Hirotaka in combination with McCormick discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Hirotaka discloses the first requested acceleration has a positive correlation with an operation amount of a pedal operated by a driver of the vehicle. ([0020]; “The operation amount sensor 14 detects the operation amount (pedal operation amount θ) [degrees] of the accelerator pedal 12 from its original position, and outputs the result to the ECU 22 .”)
Claim 4 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores a program which executes the limitations found in claim 1. The ECU taught by Hirotaka includes memory ([0022]; “The ECU 22 includes a memory 32 .”). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that memory typically used in ECU’s utilize non-transitory memory. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 in view of Hirotaka as evidenced by McCormick for the same reasoning.
Claim 5 recites a method to operate the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 in view of Hirotaka as evidenced by McCormick for the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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 as well as overcoming the 112(b) rejection to claim 2.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Seok (US 20200148189 A1) relates to the speed control of a vehicle utilizing multiple speed profiles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668