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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 were originally filed on 10/07/2024 and claimed priority on JP2023-180029, which was filed on 10/19/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 10/07/2024 and 09/22/2025 have been considered. An initialed copy of each Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant should remove the reference numbers in parenthesis from claims 6-7.
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.
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 limitations are:
Detection unit that is configured to detect a motion of a driver, a behavior of the vehicle, and biological information of the driver in claim 1
Abnormal sign determination unit that is configured to determine whether there is an abnormal sign on the driver in claim 1
Abnormality determination unit that is configured to determine whether the driver is in the abnormal state in claim 2
Driving assistance determination unit that is configured to determine whether execution of the driving assistance control is restricted in claims 6-7.
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.
According to pages 9-10, 20, and Figure 1, the detection unit, abnormal sign determination unit, abnormality determination unit, and driving assistance determination unit are part of a controller that is configured to perform the steps shown in Figure 4.
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 § 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 9 recites “A storage medium storing a vehicle control program for causing a computer to execute vehicle control…”. A storage medium storing a control program for causing a computer to execute control can be a transitory storage medium, which is not a process, machine, manufacture, and/or composition of matter. To overcome the rejection, Applicant can amend claim 9 to read “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a vehicle control program for causing a computer to execute vehicle control …”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshimura et al (US 20210001866 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Yoshimura)
Regarding Claims 1 and 8-9, Yoshimura teaches a vehicle control device (See at least Yoshimura Paragraph 0024, and Figure 1, the driving support system is interpreted as the vehicle control device) comprising:
a vehicle control method (See at least Yoshimura Paragraph 0005 and Figure 5) comprising:
a storage medium storing a vehicle control program for causing a computer to execute vehicle control, the vehicle control program (See at least Yoshimura Paragraph 0006) including:
a detection unit that is configured to detect a motion of a driver of a vehicle (See at least Yoshimura Paragraphs 0030, 0043-0045, and 0058, the ECU, which is interpreted to include the detection unit, detects a motion of the driver using the driver camera), a behavior of the vehicle (See at least Yoshimura Paragraphs 0028-0029, 0031, 0034-0035, 0040, and 0060-0061, the ECU detects the behavior of the vehicle using sensors), and biological information of the driver (See at least Yoshimura Paragraphs 0043, 0049-0051, and Figure 2, the ECU detects the biological information of the driver);
an abnormal sign determination unit that is configured to determine whether there is an abnormal sign on the driver based on the motion of the driver, the behavior of the vehicle, and the biological information of the driver (See at least Yoshimura Paragraphs 0040, 0043, 0046, 0050-0054, 0060-0061, and Figures 2 and 5, the ECU, which is interpreted to include the abnormal sign determination unit, determines an abnormality in the driver and their driving operation based on the motion of the driver, the behavior of the vehicle, and the biological information of the driver); and
a vehicle controller that is configured to perform different types of vehicle control according to a situation of the abnormal sign on the driver (See at least Yoshimura Paragraphs 0037-0039, 0072-0073, and Figures 3-5, the travel control ECU is the vehicle controller, which performs different types of control according to the abnormal signs of the driver and their driving).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura in view of Tamagaki et al (US 20200148214 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Tamagaki)
Regarding Claims 2-3, Yoshimura teaches wherein the detection unit includes a posture detection unit that is configured to detect a posture in which the driver is in an abnormal state (See at least Yoshimura Paragraphs 0043-0047, and Figure 5, the detected posture is used to determine if the driver is in an abnormal/dead-man state), a motion detection unit that is configured to detect a motion that is the abnormal sign on the driver (See at least Yoshimura Paragraph 0058, the motion of the eyes of the driver are detected to determine an abnormal sign of the driver), a vehicle behavior detection unit that is configured to detects an abnormal behavior of the vehicle associated with the abnormal sign on the driver (See at least Yoshimura Paragraphs 0040, and 0060-0065, the abnormal behavior of the vehicle is detected and associated with the abnormal sign of the driver), and a biological information detection unit that is configured to detect biological information that is the abnormal sign on the driver (See at least Yoshimura Paragraphs 0043, 0049-0051, and Figure 2, the biological information of the driver is detected to determine an abnormal sign of the driver),
the vehicle control device further includes an abnormality determination unit that is configured to determine whether the driver is in the abnormal state by using at least a detection result of the posture detection unit (See at least Yoshimura Paragraphs 0043-0047, 0065, and Figures 2 and 5, the detected posture is used to determine if the driver is in an abnormal/dead-man state by the dead-man determiner/abnormality determination unit)…
Yoshimura fails to disclose the vehicle controller is configured to activate driving assistance control for enhancing traveling safety of the vehicle from a time when it is determined that the driver has the abnormal sign to a time when it is determined that the driver is in the abnormal state,
wherein the vehicle controller is configured to activate at least one of speed limit control of the vehicle, erroneous driving operation reduction control, collision warning control, collision reduction braking control, collision avoidance control, lane deviation warning control, and lane deviation suppression control as the driving assistance control for enhancing traveling safety of the vehicle.
However, Tamagaki teaches the vehicle controller is configured to activate driving assistance control for enhancing traveling safety of the vehicle from a time when it is determined that the driver has the abnormal sign to a time when it is determined that the driver is in the abnormal state (See at least Tamagaki Paragraphs 0008-0009, the driving assistance control is activated from a time to when the abnormality sign is detected to when the driving difficulty/abnormal state is determined),
wherein the vehicle controller is configured to activate at least one of speed limit control of the vehicle, erroneous driving operation reduction control, collision warning control, collision reduction braking control, collision avoidance control, lane deviation warning control, and lane deviation suppression control as the driving assistance control for enhancing traveling safety of the vehicle (See at least Tamagaki Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0069, and 0071, the driving assistance control includes lane deviation suppression control).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Yoshimura with Tamagaki to activate lane deviation suppression control from a time when it is determined that the driver has the abnormal sign to a time when it is determined that the driver is in the abnormal state. This modification, as taught by Tamagaki, would allow the vehicle to steadily travel as driving assistance control is exercised to prevent the deviation of the vehicle from a traveling lane even during the interval between the detection of driver abnormality and the determination of driving difficulty/abnormal state (See at least Tamagaki Paragraphs 0008-0009), which would increase the safety of the vehicle.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura in view of Tamagaki, and in further view of Ito (US 20250033612 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Ito)
Regarding Claims 4-5, modified Yoshimura fails to disclose the vehicle controller is configured to change an execution threshold for the driving assistance control to make it easier to execute the driving assistance control when a preset time has elapsed since the time when it is determined that the driver has the abnormal sign.
However, Ito teaches change an execution threshold for the driving assistance control to make it easier to execute the driving assistance control when a preset time has elapsed since the time when it is determined that there is an abnormal sign (See at least Ito Paragraphs 0055-0056, 0058, 0063-0064, and Figure 3, the execution/determination threshold is decreased to make it easier to determine that the driver is in an abnormal state and execute assistance/emergency control when a preset time T2 has elapsed since the time the abnormality signal was received).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Yoshimura with Ito to change an execution threshold for the driving assistance control to make it easier to execute the driving assistance control when a preset time has elapsed since the time when it is determined that the driver has the abnormal sign. This modification, as taught by Ito, would make it easier to determine that the driver is in an abnormal state when the driver is suspected of having an abnormality, thereby enabling more sensitive detection of driver abnormality and reliably improving determination accuracy (See at least Ito Paragraph 0055).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura in view of Tamagaki, and in further view of Upmanue et al (US 20190129416 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Upmanue)
Regarding Claims 6-7, modified Yoshimura fails to disclose a driving assistance determination unit that is configured to determine whether execution of the driving assistance control is restricted,
wherein when the driving assistance determination unit determines that execution of the driving assistance control is restricted, the vehicle controller is configured to perform vehicle control different from vehicle control to be performed when the driving assistance determination unit determines that execution of the driving assistance control is not restricted, and to execute at least deceleration control of the vehicle.
However, Upmanue teaches a driving assistance determination unit that is configured to determine whether execution of the driving assistance control is restricted (See at least Upmanue Paragraphs 0016, 0029, 0031, and 0034, the autonomous driving/driving assistance control is restricted when the vehicle is not on an autonomous drive capable roadway),
wherein when the driving assistance determination unit determines that execution of the driving assistance control is restricted, the vehicle controller is configured to perform vehicle control different from vehicle control to be performed when the driving assistance determination unit determines that execution of the driving assistance control is not restricted (See at least Upmanue Paragraphs 0031 and 0034, when the autonomous driving/driving assistance control is restricted, the vehicle pulls to the road shoulder and stops, which is different than when the autonomous driving/driving assistance is not restricted), and to execute at least deceleration control of the vehicle (See at least Upmanue Paragraph 0034, the vehicle decelerates to a stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Yoshimura with Upmanue to execute deceleration control when the driving assistance determination unit determines that execution of the driving assistance control is restricted. This modification, as taught by Upmanue, would allow the system to safely stop the vehicle on the shoulder of the road when the driver is unable to drive the vehicle and the driving assistance control is restricted (See at least Upmanue Paragraphs 0029, 0031, and 0034).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshida et al (US 20240324926 A1) teaches a driver abnormality sign detection method using the motion and biological information of the driver
Park (US 20220032923 A1) teaches collecting physical information of a driver and the driving state of the vehicle to determine an abnormality
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 3657