DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/944,373 filed on November 12, 2024 in which claims 1-5 were presented for examination.
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 1-5 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 12, 2024 complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Title of the Invention
37 C.F.R. § 1.72(a) states: “The title of the invention may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible” (emphasis added). Thus, the title of the invention is not sufficiently descriptive.
A new title is required that is more clearly and more specifically 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 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).
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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” “step,” or a generic placeholder, but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations is: “control unit” in claims 1, 3, and 4. Specifically, the structure, in the form of an algorithm, is recited at claim 1, ll. 6-11. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B).
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant intends to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation does not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al., US Publication 2024/0140423 (hereinafter Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a vehicle control device comprising a control unit that executes a following traveling control and a constant speed traveling control, (Kobayashi ¶ 15) by disclosing an adaptive cruise control that controls a vehicle speed and follows a preceding vehicle. Additionally, Kobayashi discloses “the following traveling control causing a vehicle that travels within a traffic lane to travel by following another vehicle that travels in front of the vehicle and the constant speed traveling control causing the vehicle to travel at a constant speed within the traffic lane” (Kobayashi ¶ 16, see also ¶ 43) where the vehicle travels in the merging lane. Further, Kobayashi discloses “wherein the control unit executes the following traveling control that causes the vehicle to travel by following the other vehicle based on a detection value that detects the other vehicle” (Kobayashi ¶¶ 35, 77) by detecting the preceding vehicle. This is based on the presence of the preceding vehicle being located inside box W0, which is a value. Moreover, Kobayashi discloses “determines that the other vehicle departs the traffic lane when recognizing a departure operation in which the other vehicle departs the traffic lane based on the detection value” (Kobayashi ¶ 67) by detecting that the merging vehicle 150, which is the preceding vehicle that has entered traveling lane 30. This is based on the detection value because the preceding vehicle was selected, and thus monitored to determine that it departed the merging lane, based on the value as discussed above. Finally, Kobayashi discloses “executes the constant speed traveling control along with stopping the following traveling control” (Kobayashi ¶¶ 46, 70) by executing the adaptive cruise control including stopping the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kobayashi discloses “wherein in a state in which a direction indicator provided in the vehicle is not lit, the control unit determines that the other vehicle has departed the traffic lane when recognizing the departure operation of any one of the following departure operations: a state in which a direction indicator of the other vehicle is lit; a state in which a relative lateral movement speed of the other vehicle with respect to the vehicle is equal to or more than a threshold; a state in which a relative lateral movement acceleration of the other vehicle with respect to the vehicle is equal to or more than a threshold; a state in which a relative yaw angle of the other vehicle with respect to the vehicle is equal to or more than a threshold; and a state in which a lateral overlap rate of the other vehicle with respect to the vehicle is equal to or less than a threshold” (Kobayashi ¶ 36) where recognizing the preceding vehicle’s lighting state of turn signal lamps is “a state in which a direction indicator of the other vehicle is lit.”
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kobayashi discloses “wherein when the control unit recognizes a stopping factor in which the other vehicle stops in the traffic lane based on the detection value, the control unit continues the following traveling control and causes the vehicle to decelerate and stop by following the other vehicle” (Kobayashi ¶¶ 110-111) by disclosing that when the control unit recognizes that the lap rate of the preceding vehicle is 0% and the acceleration rate of the preceding vehicle is below a threshold (i.e., stopping factors), the preceding vehicle is stopped. Although Kobayashi discloses that in these instances, the own vehicle “may” exit the loop so as not to stop, it does not require such an action and, thus, discloses that the own vehicle may also continue the process of maintaining a distance with the stopped vehicle, thus requiring it to stop as well.
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Kobayashi discloses “wherein when the other vehicle changes a route and the control unit recognizes the departure operation, and when a light display of a direction indication of the vehicle is in a lit state and the control unit determines that the vehicle travels the route by following the other vehicle, the control unit continues the following traveling control” (Kobayashi ¶¶ 35-36) by detecting the preceding vehicle based on the lighting states of the turn signal lamps and then following the vehicle while margining into the travel lane.
Regarding claim 5, it merely recites a non-transitory computer readable medium for embodying the device of claim 1. The medium comprises computer software modules for performing the various functions. Kobayashi comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 5 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662